>> [inaudible conversations] .. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your television

provider. >> host: and representative joe barton, a republican of texas, is the chairman emeritus of the energy and commerce committee, he joins us on "the communicators" to talk about some of the telecommunications issues facing congress and the fcc. congressman, if we could start with a couple of breaking issues in the last week or so. number one, i want to get your thoughts on the comcast/time warner cable merger and whether or not congress will end up playing a role on that. >> guest: well, we really haven't had a chance to study it much at the committee level. i think we will have a hearing on it. i'm sure the chairmen will have a hearing. on the surface of it, i would think the congress would be generally receptive. we would want to look at any local issues where there was a market dominance, disproportionate share of

concentration, but i think overall we would tend to be receptive. >> host: the other issue i wanted to ask you about, tom wheeler's comments regarding the net neutrality ruling. fcc chair wheeler said he would leave title ii on the table. >> guest: well, the fcc under president obama just doesn't get it. the courts have struck their net neutrality attempts down twice, and this latest proposal will be struck down again in court or by the congress. it's kind of a technical issue, but they're going to try to regulate the internet through what's called section 706 of the communications act can gives -- and it, you know, it's not, the internet as we know it today bears no resemblance to monopoly telephone service back in the 1930s and '40s and '50s, and what the courts have said and what the congress supports

is if i walk in to a grocery store and i buy a gallon of milk, i pay $3.50 a gallon. if i buy ten gallons, i pay $35 for all ten gallons. tom wheeler's fcc wants to say you can use as much milk as you want and you only have to pay $3.50. that's just wrong. netflix is the biggest user of the internet as people download their movies, sometimes they're as much as to 30% of the total volume of the internet. obviously, netflix should pay more than somebody who uses the internet more than once a month. i'm being simplistic, but that's the genesis. and these companies have spent billions and billions of dollars to set up their systems and to provide the fiber optics and all the megaspeeds that we just take for granted. at some level they should be

allowed to charge based on volume. >> host: well, joining our conversation is brendan sasso, technology correspondent for national journal. >> thanks, peter. congressman, you were mentioning how the fcc's rules are based on section 706 of the telecommunications act, and that says the agency has the power to promote broadband. the law was passed in 1996 when you were in congress -- >> guest: subcommittee and full committee and on the conference committee. >> when congress wrote that provision, do did you see it as empowering the fcc to adopt internet regulations? [laughter] >> guest: there really wasn't an internet as we know it today when we passed the telco act in 1996. the big fight was between legacy telephone service and what we now call the wireless market. and we fought over that, and there was, there were fights in between the broadcasters and the cable companies and, but there wasn't any fight over internet because in spite of what vice

president gore has said, there was not an internet as we know it today. so, no, there was no, there was not even any debate about the concept of net neutrality or any of that, and, you know, we have an internet that's working today, it's provided probably billions of people access to information around the world not just here in the united states, but overseas. it's probably one of the biggest platforms for freedom that the world has ever known. and as it's grown though, companies have been innovative this providing services, and some of those services cover a lot of broadband. and what the courts have ruled is that at some point in time a company can charge based on

volume metric use. they're not going to begin to charge the local homeowner, the local small businessman i don't think any differently than they are today, but these big megausers, broadband hogs so to speak, might have to change their billing practices because they may have to pay more if they're using as much of the broadband capability capacity as we have right now. >> chairman waldenen has said it's -- walden has said it's time to revisit the telecommunications act. what are you looking for in that process? are there any lessons that you have from '96? what do you think the big issues are going to be on that? >> guest: well, i just had a conversation with chairman walden very recently about that very issue, and he thinks it is time. he intends to do a number of oversight hearings and kind of fact-finding hearings the rest of this congress, and he based on that expects to put together a bill in the next congress and move forward.

of course, on the democratic side of the committee mr. markey of massachusetts who at one time was subcommittee chairman of telco is now in the u.s. senate, mr. waxman of california's announced he's retiring, mr. dingell of michigan has announced he's retiring, so you've got three members who have been very active in telco policy, each of them for at least 40 years, and in dingell's case 60 years, and they won't be on committee. so you've got a whole -- i won't say a new generation, but frank pallone of new jersey and and anna eshoo of california, green of texas, these are all very seasoned members who have -- they're not junior by any means, but they haven't served and been in the positions as the guys that i just mentioned who are retiring. so, you know, it is time to look at the telco act.

in '96 republicans had taken the majority for the first time in 40 years. tom bliley was the new chairman, jack fields of texas was the new subcommittee chairman. i think mr. markey was ranking member on the subcommittee, many dingell was the ranking member on the full committee. and then, you know, we were trying to be leading edge at that time. but if you go back to 1996, there really wasn't an internet. cell phones were these bag phones that were very expensive, very few people had. it was in a totally different environment. and now i have two, i have a congressional blackberry and a campaign iphone plus a wireless beeper i use up here. i've got high definition television sets. you name it, my 8-year-old son has a laptop computer and a

tablet. a whole different ball game. and the way we use what we now call the internet, the way we use wireless communications, they all need to be brought up to speed, and if we can get any bipartisanship at all in the next congress, i think you'll see us do that. >> host: what kind of time frame are you looking? >> guest: i'm chairman emeritus, this is the chairman -- fred upton, greg walden, i'm a spear carrier. but i hope to be, i plan to be very involved. i would hope that with the right environment we could do a bill in the next congress. and in this congress mr. walden and mr. upton have both told me personally and they've said pluckily they're going to be -- publicly they're going to be lots of hearings to set the groundwork to do it.

>> host: brendan sasso. >> another issue you've been involved in a lot is online gambling. sheldon edelson has come out against allowing the federal framework for online gambling, he said he's going to do whatever it takes to stop that. does that worry you? >> guest: we need to clarify what i'm for. i'm for internet poker, and poker's a game of skill. if the best poker player in the world would take all of our money, he or she -- [laughter] in a reasonable amount of time because heir -- they're just better. you may be a super poker player, i don't know. [laughter] you may be one of these whiz kids who plays poker on the internet all the time already. but i am not for online gambling. i am for internet poker if the states want to allow their citizens to play poker on the internet. it's a states' rights, you know, position for me. having said that, mr. edelson has come out against it, and

he's got every right to do that. as a citizen of the united states of america. but i think he's wrong. respectfully, i think he's wrong. because there are millions of people that play poker on the internet for money right now every day, and a lot of those people are in the united states, but they're playing either within a state that allows it -- nevada allows it, and i think new jersey now allows it and in the very near future four or five other states are going to allow it, and they're playing at sites that are not located in the united states. they're offshore. and so it is going to happen. it is happening. and i would hope that at some point in time mr. edelson accepts the reality, you know, just as the tides come in and the tides go out and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, adults with free choice in the united states and around the world are going to

play poker for money on the internet, and his company is in one of the best positions to offer those services and to make sure the games are honest and fair. and so him and his op to decision, while i know it's sincere, is not going to succeed in the end, and it would be a lot better having him tell us the best way to do it than in an effort to stop it. >> host: representative barton, why not then open to it up beyond poker to blackjack or slots, etc. >> guest: well, because poker is skill. i mean, i played very low-level and some would say low quality poker, but i usually break even and win a little money, but i don't play in the big money games or the big tournaments. but it is a game of skill. so i don't have a, an intellectual problem or a moral problem saying we should allow it to be played over the internet.

i'm not opposed to people that want to, you know, do roulette or some of the other things, but those aren't skill games. now, there are betting schemes and, you know, various theories about how to minimize the house advantage, but when you play poker, you're not playing against the house. you're playing against other people at the table. and over time the best people with the most skill will play. will win. the best hand doesn't always win in poker because somebody who's got more skill may beat you with a worse hand by bluffing you out of the pot and things like that. you know, you don't have that in some of the other gambling games. you bet red, you bet black, you bet on the 7, you bet on the 2 to come the hard way. that's all chance. poker is not -- there is some chance and luck in poker, but there's also a lot of skill. >> host: wanted to ask you about the cell phone unlocking bill that passed the house this week.

there was a last minute kerfuffle. what was that about? >> guest: ooh. i think a lot of members just didn't understand the issue. and, you know, members, rightfully so, tend to be scuttish if they -- skit itch if they don't really understand what's going on, and i think that's all it was. >> host: do you see that passing the senate and getting signed by -- >> guest: i never predict what's going to happen in the senate. you know? [laughter] don't get me started on the united states senate. but the house tends to be proactive regardless of political affiliation, who's in charge. if something needs to be done, the house gets out there and does it. oftentimes the senate seems not too aware of what's going on and tends to be less willing to be activist. so i can't predict what's going to happen in the senate. >> an issue you've been involved in for a long time is online privacy issues.

the white house two years ago came out with this online privacy bill of rights, and not much has happened since then. do you think that they should be more involved in this issue. >> >> guest: well, i would welcome their involvement. that's an oddity for a republican to say, he wants the obama white house to be involved. [laughter] but i'm the co-chairman in the house with the online privacy caucus. diana degette is my democratic co-chairwoman and before that ed markey of massachusetts who's now in the senate. and we have introduced an online privacy protection bill for children, the do not track kids bill. i'm hopeful that we'll get it to move in this congress. and i can't honestly give you a straightforward answer as to why some of these privacy issues have not moved forward. i will tell you with the problems they've had on the obamacare web site, problems with the irs, the problems with national security

administration, there are all kinds of privacy issues that have made the front pages, and i think more and more the average voter is going to demand that we move on privacy whether it's a generic privacy protection bill of rights like the white house has released or more specific bill like mr. markey and i have introduced to protect children's privacy, you know, it is time to do that. and to their credit, i think the republican leadership in the house, you know, speaker boehner, majority leader cantor, the chairman of the various -- chairmen of the various committees, mike rogers who chairs the intelligence committee, they sense that, and they're beginning to put packages together. hopefully, you'll see on the floor sometime this summer. >> host: go ahead, brendan. >> on some of the issues you're opposed to more government regulation. what's, you know, what's

different about online privacy where you'd be having a situation where the government would be telling google or facebook how they can handle your information? >> guest: well, i would turn that question around a little bit. i don't consider the government protecting your individual rights to be intrusive. i think google and facebook are intrusive when they capture information without your permission and use it in ways that you might not approve of if you knew how they were using it. so i think that an individual has rights, i think if the constitution were passed today, the fourth amendment against unreasonable search and seizure would include a specific right to privacy. and i think the only reason you didn't have it back in the 1700s is you didn't have the technology, and it was automatically assumed that your privacy was yours, and people

could not invade it. physicals you opened the door -- unless you opened the door and let them in or gave them a letter or whatever it was. so this concept that it is the data collector's right, to me, is just flat wrong. it is my right if i choose to be a facebook, have a facebook address, a web site, i should be able to set the parameters on what facebook can collect and how they can use it. and right now it's just the other way. and, of course, in banking, in all these other -- the web site, the government web site for health care, healthcare.gov, numberly had an amazing -- initially had ap amazing disclaimer that wasn't public, but it was right in the fine

print that you have no right to privaciment now, when i pointed that out, secretary sebelius, to her credit, said that was wrong, and she said that she would change it, and i'm told that she has changed it. so it's time to have a full-throated debate about privacy. but i start with the premise that it is, it is my right to privacy that is intrinsic to me as a united states citizen, and it is not some company or government entity's right to collect and disseminate and massage and store unless i explicitly say it's okay or unless i'm reasonably suspected of some crime or terrorist act in which case the government with probable cause does have the right to go in and invade that to protect the public good. >> host: congressman barton, you're a longtime member of congress, prominent member of the enc committee. how prevalent, how big of a boot

print do the tech companies have when it comes to lobbying? >> guest: how big a footprint? i would say modest. most of the bigger companies have washington representatives, and they participate in the political fund raising and things like that. but the best lobbyist is not somebody you pay in washington. the best lobbyist is somebody who votes for or against you located in your district. you know, if you've got a plant, if you've got a service center and you, you know, so i think, again, on both sides of the aisle i'm a lot more responsive if, well, at&t. at&t is headquartered in downtown dallas. that's not this my district, it's about 20 miles from my district line, but the they invite me to come down to speak to some of their employees who

work downtown but live in my district, that's much more effective and it's not that their people many washington are not effective -- in washington are not effective, but the most effective is in your district, in your state. and, of course, in washington there's so many trade associations and company reps that they on any big issue the washington side of it tends to balance out because you hear both sides from the representatives that are here in washington. >> i want to ask another privacy question. you had sent a letter last year to google about google glass, these computerized glasses they're coming out with, and you'd raised these privacy concerns. were you satisfied with their response? is this still a concern? [laughter] >> guest: well, google and i have an ongoing agree to disagree relationship. i certainly respect the technology that google glass represents. as an industrial engineer, it is amazing. but when i put my privacy hat

on, the ability for that to invade someone else's privacy without knowledge is phenomenal. now, you haven't seen these, you know, these glasses show up much because they're still kind of in the beta test market phase. but i did have about two weeks ago i participated in a seminar in one of the hotels here on capitol hill. and as i walked out, a man came up to me wearing a pair and wanted to interview me. now, i knew what it was, you know, because i have seen 'em and kind of got to play around with them a little bit in my office. but he interviewed me, and he used his google glass apparatus as the, as a camera. and, you know, the average person on the street probably still wouldn't know what that was, and if he had gone up and engaged in a conversation with somebody, not told them what he was doing, they wouldn't have

had a clue what was going on. so the technology side of it, i give them an a+. the protect the individual privacy of the people who don't wear the glasses but are observed, recorded, videoed by them, i hi there's still a lot of work that needs to be done. >> host: your former colleague, susan molinari, is head of the google lobbying -- >> guest: she is. a good friend of moon and her husband -- mine and her husband, bill paxson, but she's, you know, as she's supposed to do since she's paid by them, e she has to represent their company and their product in the best possible light. and i have respect for that, but my job as a public servant and as the privacy caucus co-chairman is to point out some of the potential pitfalls of the uses that technology could result in. >> host: is there agreement amongst midwest of congress about the immediate for -- amongst most of congress about the need for -- >> guest: i think there's

general agreement that we need stronger privacy protection. i don't think there's agreement on what that is. but conceptually, just the generic is there a needs for more privacy protection, i think both sides of the aisle would say yes to that. and on the republican side, it's much more apparent now than it ever has been. it comes up in our retreats when we're just brainstorming what are the issues. two or three years ago, certainly five or six years ago privacy wouldn't have made the top ten, and now it's one of the first things people spontaneously talk about. >> host: so did edward snowden start a needed conversation in this country? >> guest: well, i'm not a bug fan the of his, but in a back door kind of way, i think the answer to that question would be, yes. >> host: brent can sasso. >> one of the issues that's in your barrel is this eraser button that would allow children to delete things they put online. california passed a law a couple

years ago to do that, and it gets into effect next year, and because of the global nature of the internet, everybody will have to comply with california's law. does that take away some of the need for federal legislation? >> guest: no. it just -- i would say just the reverse. it shows that what's in our bill can be enacted, condition implemented. that was one of the more controversial items we put in the bill in the last congressment a lot of technology companies had questions about could it be dope, how would you do it -- done, how would you do it, what the liability was. and so in our bill that we've introduced in this congress, we've gone to some length to revise the language so that, you know, making explicitly clear that the requirement is to erase it from your, be -- the page or the location that the company has responsibility for. in other words, if something is first posted on facebook on an individual's facebook page, when that's erased, facebook erases it from their page and erases it

from their databank, but they can't guarantee that if somebody took that and put it on youtube and it's gone viral that you can erase it from all ten million places it has gone to. so, you know, young people do things that later on they wish they hadn't have done and they say things and post pictures that they shouldn't have, you know, and so that's -- that eraser button is a way to -- we don't want to ruin somebody's life because when they were 13 or 14 they posted something that they shouldn't have, and it -- later on they realized that, and they can't, they can't erase it. there are days i wish that some of my votes 10 or 15 years ago i could erase. [laughter] in public life in congress, once you've voted, it's there. but for a child or a teenager, it doesn't necessarily have to be a part of your permanent

record. >> host: coming up march 5th, your privacy caucus is having the privacy commissioner from ontario. >> guest: we are. >> host: why? >> guest: well, she's the leading expert on privacy, and she's a very vivacious woman who speaks in a way that people listen, and so we've invited her to one of our privacy caucuses to hear her thoughts on what she calls privacy by design. >> host: does that, does canada do it differently than we do? >> guest: i'd say they put more emphasis on it than we do k. i don't know how much differently they do it, but it is, it is -- privacy is more protected in a legislative way in canada than it is in the united states. >> host: brendan sasso, time for one more question. >> the fcc's spectrum auction is coming up in a year. are there any concerns that you have about how they're going to structure it or decisions that they've made? what are you looking for in that? >> guest: well, that's something

that chairman upton and chairman walden, subcommittee chairman walden are continuing to do oversight on. they obviously want there to be an auction. it's an unusual type of auction in that we, you have the reverse and then the forward portion, and it starts, i think, next year as you said in your question. but broadcasters that have spectrum that they wish to solen towerly give back -- voluntarily give back, they submit it, and then the fcc decides which of those, which of that spectrum they're going to accept for auction. and then if they get enough in a specific market to reauction, then they'll have the forward auction. i think there's a real debate, a real concern how many broadcasters are going to relinquish spectrum. and so that's the first hurdle you'll have to overcome. and then you've got to make a decision if you get enough of that, how you go through the forward portion.

so it's, it's a fairly complicated scheme, and it's, you know, an unusually long time frame. so, you know, conceptually republicans are for auctions, and we're for volunteerism. how this is going to work out in practice is anybody's guess. >> host: does the federal government have excess spectrum, do you think, that they control that they can -- [laughter] put up for auction as well? >> guest: that's a good question. answer is probably, yes, in the real world, but if you ask all the federal agencies, you'd get back, oh, no, no, we don't have any. i mean, this is a little bit off subject, but when i was a white house fellow under president reagan many years ago in the early '80s, 1981 or '82, the reagan administrationing asked all the -- administration asked all the cabinet officers to see if they couldn't eliminate some

of the interagency task forces that they were on. and so the secretary of energy asked me to do that project in the department of energy, and the department of energy was on, like, 133 task forces that either the secretary, the deputy secretary or an undersecretary had to participate in and had meetings at least once a month or once a week or whatever. so i sent around a questionnaire to all the assistant secretaries and said how many of these task forces do you think we could eliminate? and what do you think the answer was? [laughter] none. even though some of them never went to 'em, some of them never met. when they, when push came to shove, and this was in the reagan administration, they didn't want to give it up because at some point in tomb in some future -- in time in some future there might be an interagency task force that helped department of energy. i think if we checked with the federal agencies, they would all tell us they not only