>> guest: i would think the congress is going to be receptive. we will look at local issues where there is market dominance and a disproportionate share. but i think we would be receptive >> i want to ask you about tom wheeler's comments regarding net neutrality. he said he would leave title two

on the table. >> guest: the fcc under obama doesn't get it. they have struck them down twice and the latest will be struck down by the court or congress. it is kind of a technical issue. but they are trying to regulate the internet through section 706 of the communication act. it isn't the internet as we know it today bears no resemblance to telephone service in the '30s, '40s and '50s. the congress supports that if i walk into a gallon of milk and pay $3.50. if i pay ten gallons it is $35

for all ten. tom wheeler's fcc wants to see you can use as much as you want and only pay $3:50. that is wrong. n net flix takes up 30% more sometimes and they should pay more than someone who uses it once agmonth. these companies have spend billions and billions to set up system and provide the fiber optics and the mega speeds that we take for granted. at some level they should be able to charge based on volume. >> host: we have brendan here joining us. >> brendan: thanks, peter. you mentioned the rules are

based on 706 that says the agencies has the power to promote broadband. the law was passed in 1996 when you were in congress. when congress wrote that provision, did you see it assist empowering the fcc to adopt these regulations? >> guest: there was no internet when we passed the telco act. it was the fight between the telephone and the wireless market. we fought over that. and fights between the broadcasters and cable company but no fight over the internet because despite what vice president gore said there was no internet as we know it today. so there was not even any debate about the concept of net

neutrality or any of that. and you know, we have an internet that is working today. it has provided, probably billions of people access to information around the world. overseas it is the biggest fl flat -- platform for freedom we have known. but some of the services use a lot of broadband. and what the courts have ruled is that at some point in time a company can charge beigeed on volume metric use. they will not begin to charge the local homeowners or business man i don't think any different. but the big megausers might have

to change their billing practices because they might have to pay more if they are using as much as we have now. >> brendan: chairman walden said it is time to revisit the telecommunicati telecommunications act. what do you think the big issues are with that? >> guest: i just had a conversation with chairman walden about this issue. he think it is time. he plans to do oversight hearing and fact-finding hearings and expects to put together a bill in the next congress and move forward. on the democratic side of the committee, mr. markey of massachusetts who is now in the united states senate, mr. waxman of california announced he is

retiring and mr. dingle as well. so you have three people active in telco policy and they will not be on the committee. you have a whole, i will not say new generation, but frank from new jersey and the california and pennsylvania and colorado members are very seasoned who are not junior by any means, but haven't served and been in the positions as the guys i mentioned that are retiring. it is time to look at the telco act. in '96, republicans had taken the majority for the first time in 40 years and they had a new chairman and subcommittee

chairm chairman. we were trying to be leading edge at at time. if you go back to 1996, there wasn't an internet really. cell phones were these bag phones that were very expensive and very few people had. it was in a totally different environment. and now, i have a congressional black berry and a campaign i-phone plus a wireless beeper. i have high definition television sets. you name it. my 8-year-old son has a laptop computer and a tablet. whole different ball game. the way we use the internet and wireless communication, they all need to be brought up to speed.

if we can get any bipartisanship in congress, you will see us do that. >> host: what kind of time frame? >> guest: this is greg walden trying. i am a spear carrier. i plan to be very involved. i would hope that with the right environment we could a bill in the next congress. and in this congress, mr. walden and upton told me they will set the groundwork. >> brendan: another issue you have been involved in is on-line gambling. sheldon elderson has come out against online gambling saying

he is going to do whatever he can to stop this. >> guest: let's clarify. i am for internet poker. poker is a game of skill. if the best poker player was sitting around the table they would take all of money in a reasonable time. you maybe a super poker player. you maybe one of the kids who plays poker online. i am not for online gambling but i am for internet poker if the states want to let them play. it is state's right position. mr. alderson is against it. and he's got every right to do that do. but respectfully i think he is

wrong. there are millions of people playing poker online and playing within a state that allows us like nevada and new jersey and four-five other states will allow it. they are playing on sites that are offshore. it is going to happen. it is happening. and i would hope at some point in time, he accepts the reality 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. his company is in one of the best positions to offer those services and make sure the games

are honest and fair. so his opposition, while is sincere, isn't going to succeed in the end. it would be better having him tell us the best way to do it than an effort to stop it. >> host: why not then open it up beyond poker to blackjack or slots? >> guest: poker is skill. i play low-level and low-quality poker some would say. but i break even and win a little money. but i don't play in the big money games or tournaments. but it is a game of skill. i don't have a moral problem letting people play it over the internet. i am not against rulete and other things but they are not

skill games. when you play poker, you are not playing against the house, you are playing against other people at the table, over time the best people with the most skill win. the best hand doesn't always win in poker because somebody with more skill may beat you with a worse hand by bluffing you out of the pot. you don't have that in the other games. you bet red, black or on the seven or the two. that is all chance. there is some luck and chance in poker but a lot of skill. >> host: i want to ask you about the cellphone and locking bill that passed the house. what was the last-minute scuffle about? >> guest: i don't think a lot of members understood the issue.

members rightfully so are skittish if they don't understand what is going on. >> host: do you see that passing in the senate? >> guest: i never predict what happens in the senate. the house tends to be proactive regardless of who is in charge. if something needs to be done, the house gets out there and does it. often times the senate seems not to aware of what is going on and tends to be less willing to be activist so i cannot predict what is going to happen. >> brendan: online privacy issues is something you have been involved in. the whitehouse came out with an online pri

online privacy and never heard anything. should they be involved? >> guest: i welcome them involvement. but i have introduces an online privacy protection bill for kids called the don't track kids bill. i am hoping we will get it to move in this congress. i cannot honestly give you a straightforward answers as to why the privacy issues haven't move forward. i will tell you with you problems on the obamacare website, irs, and national security administration -- there are all kinds of privacy issues making the front pages and i think more and more the average voter is going to demand we move on privacy whether it is a

gener gener generic privacy protection bill of rights or a more specific bill like the one to protect children's privacy. it is time to do that. and to their credit, i think the republican leadership in the house, speaker boehner and cantor and the chairman of the various committees and mike rogers, senses that and they with beginning to put back and hopefully you will see it on the floor. >> brendan: you are opposed to more government regulation on so many issues. what is different about online privacy where the government would tell google how to handle

this? >> guest: 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 you might not approve of if you anyhow how they were using it. -- knew -- i think an individual has rights. i think if the constitution were passed today, the 4th amendment 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. it was automatically assumed your privacy was yours and people couldn't invade it unless you let them in or gave them a letter or whatever it was. so concept it is the data

collector's right is wrong. it is my right if i chose to be a facebook address or website i should be able to set the parameters on what facebook can collect and how they can use it. it is just the other way. in banking and all of the others the government websites for health care initially had an amazing disclaimer that wasn't public but was right in the fine print that you had no right to privacy. when i pointed that out, secretary sebelius said that was wrong and said she would change it and i am told she has changed

it. i start with the premise it is my right to privacy that is intrinsic to me. it isn't the government's right to collect and store unless i say it is okay or unless i am suspected of a crime or terrorist act in which case the government, does have probably cause, to go in and invade that. >> host: congressman barton, how big of a footprint to the technology companies have when it comes to lobbying? >> guest: how big a footprint? i would say modest.

most have washington representatives for the big ones. they participate in the political fundraising, but the best lobbiest is someone who votes for or against you located in your district. if you have a plan or service center. i think again, on both sides of the aisle, i am a lot more responsive if, well at&t is head quartered in downtown dallas and that is 20 miles from my district line. but if they invite me to come down to speak to some of their employees who work downtown but live in my district, that is more effective. it isn't that people in washington are not effective but the most effective is in your

district and in your state. in washington, there is so many trade representation, on any big issue, the washington side balances out because you hear both sides from the representatives here in washington. >> brendan: i want to ask another privacy question. you sent a letter to google about google glass and raised privacy concerns. are you satisfied with the results? is this a concern? >> guest: google and i have an ongoing relationship to agree to d disagree. google glass is amazing.

but the availability to invade privacy is phenomenal. you have not seen these show up yet. but i did participate in a seminar, i walked out and a man came up to me wearing pair and wanted to interview me. i knew what it was. i had seen them and played with them. he used the google glass as the camera. the average person on the street not have known. if he had gone up and talked to someone, they would not have a clue. the technology side, a-plus. but protecting the individual privacy of the people that are observed or recorded orvided --

filmed by them -- there is a a lot of work to do. >> host: your good friends with these people. >> guest: yes, and she is paid by google to represent the company. i have respect for that. but my job is to point out the pitfalls that technology could result in. >> host: is there agreement amongst congress for new privacy regulati regulations? >> guest: i think there is aagreement it needs to happen, but not on what that should be. i think both sides of the aisle would say needing to is yes.

privacy wouldn't have made the top ten five or significance six years ago but now people talk about it. >> host: did edward snowden start a needed conversation? >> guest: i am not a fan of his, but i think in the backdoor answer is yes. >> brendan: an eraser button in your don't track kids bill would allow children to erase things they put online. california passed the law to do that and it starts next week. and everybody has to comply with california's law. does that take away for the federal ledgeilatigislation?

>> guest: no, i would say it shows what is in the bill can be implemented. that was one of the controver controversial things and companies had questions about could it be done, how would you do it, what was the liability. so in the bill we introduced in congress, we have gone to some length to revise the language so the requirement is to erase it from the page or the location the company has responsibility for. in other words, if something is posted on facebook, when that is eras erased, facebook erases, but they cannot promise if someone put it on you tube and it is

viral, they can erase it from all of the places it went to. young people do things they wish they had not done or say things and post pictures they shouldn't and that eraser button is a way -- we don't want to ruin someone's life because when they were 13 or 14 they posted something they should not are and later on they realize that but can't erase it. there are days i wish some of my votes 10-15 years ago i could erase. but in public life and congress once you vote it is there. but it doesn't have to be a part of your permanent record for a teenager. >> host: the privacy commissioner from ontario is coming in. why? >> guest: she is the leading expert on privacy and a

vivacious women who speaks in a way that people listen. so we invited her to hear her thoughts on what she calls privacy by design. >> host: does canada do it differently than we do? >> guest: they put more emphasis on it than we do. i don't know how much differently it is. but privacy is more protected in a legislative way in canada than it is in the united states. >> brendan: the fcc spectrum option is coming up in a year. are there concerns you have about how they are structuring it or decisions they made? >> guest: that is something chairman upton and walden are doing oversight on. they want there to be an auction. it is an unusual type of auction

in that you have the reverse and then forward section that starts next year. broadcasters with spectrum they wish to give back submit it, the fcc decides which of that spectrum they will accept, if they get enough in the specific market to reauction they will have the forward auction. i think there is a real debate or concern how many broadcasters have going to let go of spectrum. that is the first hurdle. and if you get enough of that, you have to decide how you go through the forward portion. it is complicated scheme and a long timeframe. so conceptually republicans are

for auction and how this is going to work out in practice is anybody's guess. >> host: does the federal government have access spectrum they control and can put up for auction? >> guest: that is the good question. the answer is probably yes in the real world. but if you ask the federal agencies you would get back we don't have any. when i with was a whitehouse fellow in the early '80s, the reagan administration asked a lot of cabinet officers to see if they could eliminate the interagency task forces they were on and the secretary of energy asked me do that. they were on 133 task forces that needed a secretary, deputy

second or under secretary had to participate in and had meetings once a week or months or whatever. so i sent a questionnaire to them and said how many task forces do you think we could eliminate and what do you think the answer was? none. even though some of them never went to them. some never met. but when push came to shove, they didn't want to give it up because they said in some future, there might be a task force that helps. so i think if we checked with the federal agents, they would say they don't give back. but a market analyst doing an w outside