every weekend right here on c-span2. .. between comcast and time warner cable. this week joining us is senator al franken, a democrat of minnesota, who is on the judiciary committee. in fact, he's chair of the judiciary technology and the law subcommittee. senator franken -- >> guest: it's privacy, technology and the law.

>> host: i apologize. thank you so much, sir. >> guest: that's all right. >> host: yesterday at the hearing held by the committee you said that a merger between comcast and time warner cable would result in fewer choices, higher prices and even worse service for your constituents. how do you come to that conclusion? >> guest: well, because that's been the case when there's consolidation of media and of telecommunications media with. that's what's happening here. this is, comcast is the biggest cable tv company in the country, and it's the biggest internet broadband company in the country, and it's wanting to buy the second biggest cable tv and the third biggest internet broadband company x. that's just too big. and not only that, but comcast has about 12 or 13% of all

television programming after it bought nbc universal and their 20 some cable stations including telemundo and bravo and not to mention msnbc and cnbc. and, in fact, we talk a little bit about that merger or that acquisition of nbc universal in the hearing yesterday, and i talked about it. we, you know, when we were discussing that and i was against that one too, brian roberts, the ceo of comcast, said that, you know, look, we compete. it's okay if for us to buy nbc universal, buy all this content because we have to compete with all these other distributers. and he mentioned time warner cable.

as one of those competitors. and he said at that hearing, at the hearing with us that we're not expanding our distribution. so it's okay for us to vertically integrate this way. and they can't have it both ways. and they are trying to have it both ways. in one hearing you say, look, we compete with time warner cable. and in the next, you know, a couple years later it's, oh, we don't compete with time warner cable. that's literally what they said. so they're completely contradicting themselves. and when they have this power now of, you know, they're going to, you know, control so much of broadband, the broadband space, and they say, well, look, you know, on the cable area we're competing with directv and satellite tv. well, even if you get directv or satellite, any kind of

satellite tv, you still want to be on the internet. and guess what? you're going to have to go back to comcast. and then when they've been talking to their 2346sers -- investors in these talks with, you know, goldman sachs and all the other investment banks that have investment in it, they talk about about how, oh, we're going to bundle. we're going to use this power to leverage. that's what we're going to do. that's what they say. and that's their job as a corporation, to make as much money for their investors as possible. so they were mischaracterizing what the market looks like, and this is going to, you know, their service is terrible. that's -- i sent out an e-mail asking people to tell me their views on this merger. i got over 100,000 letters and e-mails, and people talk about

how lousy the service is, how they can only go to comcast. and actually mr. cohen said, he essentially thanked me for pointing out how bad their service is and as they're trying to work on that. i said, you're welcome. >> host: senator franken, joining our conversation here on the "the communicators" is tony romm who covers technology. >> guest: hi, tony. >> hey, senator, thanks for joining us. i want to start with something david cohen said on wednesday, quote: i can make you and members on this committee that one absolute commitment which is that there is nothing in this transaction that will cause anyone's cable prices to go up. and i'm curious, senator, do you believe cohen's commitment there? do you think the consumers trust comcast when it promises there isn't a way for their cable prices to go through this deal? >> guest: i don't know how he says that when on one of his first phone calls about this deal he said that prices may go up even faster than they had

before, that he can't guarantee that. that seems contradictory to what he said right at the outset on this deal. >> sure. when you about bigness, comcast has talked about giving up some of its subscribers to keep up with that under 30 threshold, is that enough here? giving subscribers up enough to address your concerns about comcast's bigness, so to speak? >> guest: you know, that 30% threshold was about one sector. so they have, yes, they have a 30%, they'll have a 30% threshold on cable tv. they'll have a bigger threshold on cable internet. and then plus that, they have 12 or 13% of all programming. the original 30% was about having it in one sector like cable tv. that is very different when you have all of these pieces that you're putting together and that

you can leverage. and they have shown that. they've shown that they do it. we actually had a dispute -- not a dispute, we had a discussion about mr. cohen's, i guess, filing to the fcc and doj. he had a footnote t in which he said that there was only one condition that was put on us by the fcc and doj that they even looked at. and that was they were supposed to create a stand-alone broadband package for people so they they could just get the broadband and wouldn't have to bundle with the cable tv. today did that, but they didn't tell -- they did that, but they didn't tell anyone. they basically didn't market it. they were fine for that. so he said that was the only one. and i said, really? because, actually, you didn't

also follow the other condition, one of the other conditions on bloomberg. and the reason i brought up bloomberg, bloomberg is a cable news, a financial news network, right? and one of the conditions was that you have neighborhooding. and neighborhooding means that you put the cable news stations all next to each other, so you have cnn next to fox next to msnbc so that if you're watching those things, you can switch from one to the other. and they also put cnbc there, and that's a financial news network. well, they were supposed to neighborhood bloomberg, okay? now, comcast because they bought nbc and all of nbc's cable stations, they own cnbc. so they want as many eyeballs on cnbc as possible so they can charge as much for their advertising on cnbc.

that's how the game works, that's how tv works. and if they put bloomberg in the neighborhood, people go, like, huh. i'd like to watch bloomberg. i'd like to see, i'd like to sample that. i haven't seen bloomberg, i want to see bloomberg's financial news network. and then they might like it. and they don't want people not watching cnbc. so they put bloomberg way, way, way in the nosebleed seats so people couldn't find it. they didn't put it in the neighborhood. and that was leveraging their position which is what they talk about when they talk to their investors. they had, in 2012 they had a conversation with one of the big wall street banks who was complaining you're not -- we don't think you're leveraging your position enough. and the executive from comcast

said, oh, no, no, we are. [laughter] we're, you know, our, you know, our per-customer we're going up 4 or 5 or $6 a month on, you know, that was for internet. so, and i asked mr. cohen, aren't you going to use this -- i mean, that's your job for your investors, to get them the biggest return on investment. aren't you going to use this leverage to do things like bundle? and they had told their investors after this deal was announced that we're going to tell our call center people to push bundles, to push it. and this is, again, goes back to that earlier condition that they were fined on where they put stand-alone broadband, but they didn't tell anyone. so you call into the call center, and mr. cohen in his

answers is very careful. he said, well, we've destructed our call center people to, when asked about, you know, stand-alone packages to say that they exist. but that doesn't mean they bring it up. that doesn't mean they don't -- and they told their investors, they told the wall street banks we are going to push bundling. we are going to upsell, that's the word they used, upsell. so they are, this is going to cost people in my state, in minnesota, is going to cost consumers more money. we've seen the costs of your basic cable packages from 1995 until 2010 go up at more than double inflation. and usually when the technologies get better and better and better, actually the price goes down. you saw that in computers, you

saw that in, you know, big screen, flat tvs. they're using, this is consolidation, and consolidation means leverage. and this is, and this leverage on who supplies them, who supplies the settop boxes and who supplies routers. this is very troubling. >> host: senator franken, how would you propose to increase competition in the cable market? is. >> guest: the first thing i would do is not let the largest cable tv company buy the second large cable tv company. that's where i'd start. i, my job here on the judiciary committee is to, you know, at these hearings is to raise my

concerns, and what mr. cohen -- you know, mr. cohen seems like a really smart guy, and he's a really great guy, i'm sure. and he earns -- [laughter] i can say about him he earns, you know, sort of what he gets. but my job was to ask him tough questions. you see, they have 107 lobby u.s.es on capitol hill. -- lobbyists on capitol hill. they're swarming capitol hill, their lobbyists. you know? but i've got 100,000, i had 100,000 people, more than 100,000 people write me their objections. and so the first thing i would do is stop this deal. i would not let this go through if i were -- it's not up to me. it's up to the fcc and the doj. >> host: tony fromm. >> senator, i would like to change gears slightly and talk about another major issue here in washington, and that's surveillance. you've been one of many folks on capitol hill who have called for

more transparency and assorted information the government's collecting and what it's doing with it. so i'm curious if you could sketch out your prospects for reform this year. where do you see this transparency measure, and what do you think of the efforts on capitol hill to change the way the nsa collects and uses surveillance data? >> guest: well, i have a bipartisan bill, senator dean heller of nevada, republican, as co-sponsor, the lead co-sponsor of my bill. which i believe in transparency, and i think the american people should be into it be led to understand how many americans' information is being stored and how much of it is then being accessed. so, for example, in the metadata program which the administration has changed now and they are going to do, they're going to, essentially, do it where the, if any, companies keep the cay da and that you've -- data and that you've got to get a warrant to do that, and i think that's a

very acceptable change, but i think that americans would know, need to know how many americans' data is actually looked at. because the metadata, as you know, is just the number called from, the number called to, the time and date of that call and the duration of the call. it's not any content. at the point where now where they're going to get a fisa order or warrant to look at this stuff, americans want to know just how many, how much of our information is looked at, how many americans are caught up in that. i think that's something that americans are entitled to know so they can decide for themselves if this is the right thing to do. i voted against both the 215 and 702 reauthorizations because i felt there wasn't enough transparency. i had co-sponsored transparency

amendments to each of those. when they didn't pass, i voted against them. in the 702, that's getting, capturing the internet traffic of people, of nonamericans overseas who we are known to have some tie to terrorism. that is very, very important that we do that. i think it's absolutely crucial. but the statute says you're not supposed to take americans -- now, obviously, if a known bomb maker like in the subway bombing case is doing traffic with somebody in colorado and that guy is talking about bombing the new york subway, that's when it's good to be able to get his phone data, and that's when it's good -- so the fbi can see he's talking to a guy in philadelphia and that together they're plotting to bomb the new york

subways. this is important -- it's important that we have these in place, we just need transparency. those two guys, by the way, zazi and the guy in philadelphia, are in prison. i think that zazi was his name. >> sure. and that's the surveillance side of things. on the commercial side of things there's been a lot of talk about doing something, talk about transparency, talk about new rules, but it's never really turned into -- >> guest: i have, i have a bill there that actually passed, a version of it passed last congress through the judiciary committee. the location privacy measure. exactly. i think you have the right to allow people to take your location information and to give them permission to do that and permission to keep it and permission to give it or sell it to a third party. one of, part of this is stalking apps.

the first hearing i did on this, one of the first testimony came from the minnesota coalition of battered women. and they gave some hair-raising testimony. they talked about this woman in st. louis county, that's in northern minnesota, and she was in an abusive situation. so she went to a domestic violence center at a county building. and while she was there, she got a text from her abuse wither saying why are -- abuser saying why are you in the county building? are you going to the domestic violence center? and that scared her, and they took her to the county courthouse to get a restraining order against the guy. she gets there, on her phone is why are you in the courthouse, are you getting a restraining order against me? now, that's called, that's stalking. that's gps stalking. part of my bill would start to

keep records on this. do to j only -- doj only has records from 1996 for some reason on the number of gps stalking incidences, and it's then 25,000. now, think of how many more people have smartphones than they had, there's been an explosion of the use of smartphones since then. so this would make the manufacture and marketing of these stalking apps, i mean, they're marketed as follow your, you know, your girlfriend, see if she's cheating on you. >> senator, so just to clarify here, on both the location privacy measure that you've introduced and on the broader issue of the electronic communications privacy act, you know, reforming that 1986 law that governs digital due process, what do you think are the prospects for movement this year? what do you think happens, you know, as we get closer to the end of the year? >> guest: well, you know, chairman leahy cares about both

these issues, and i know -- i have republican colleagues that care about these issues as well. my hope is that we will get to these things and that we will, you know, senator leahy, chairman leahy has written a lot of the ecpa laws in the past, and i think and hope we'll get to this. >> host: and finally, senator franken, what's the next step with regard to the comcast/time warner cable proposed merger with regard to senate judiciary committee? >> guest: i don't know. i'd like to see us do more hearings, but we'll see. >> host: and have you shared your views with doj and the fcc at this point? >> guest: yes, we have. we've been as soon -- as soon as proposed deal was announced, i wrote to both doj and the fcc to express my concerns, and i've had a running correspondence

with them. >> host: senator al franken, democrat of minnesota and a member of the senate judiciary committee. thanks for join ising us on "the communicators," sir. >> guest: thank you. >> host: and tony romm of politico, what did you hear from senator franken will specifically about comcast? >> guest: sure. it's not over is what we heard. not just because senator franken wants another hearing, but because there are actually ore hearings still to come. the house judiciary committee plans to look at this may 8th, and aides to chairman patrick leahy have said they might hold another hearing on this partly because comcast filed formal documents with the fcc just hours before the senate judiciary committee ultimately held its inquiry. we heard there are plenty of questions on capitol hill. there may not be as many critics on the hill who share some of senator franken's very serious concerns with the deal, but plenty of members who have lots of questions, lots of concerns,

we'll hear that going forward. >> host: well, you attended yesterday's hearing, what'd you hear from the other senators? were senator franken's views widely shared? was there some support for this potential merger? >> guest: there were definitely questions about consumers and competition. plenty of folks are concerned that potentially this could mean higher cable rates. plenty of folks are concerned this could affect broadband just considering the fact that comcast would touch so many millions more homes, but there was also that typical partisan breakdown between democrats and republicans over what the fcc and the justice department should do here. senator hatch simply doesn't think the fcc should take a very strong hand to this deal. there might be support for conditions, but we're going to have to hear that later in this debate because it's so early, you know? we only just got these documents, we'll hear more from the hill, but for now plenty of interest on cable and broadband. >> host: one of the issues that david cohen has discussed is the fact that comcast is under net neutrality, the only company

that operates under net neutrality rules right now because of the nbc merger. do you foresee some conditions being put on this merger by fcc, by doj? >> guest: sure. so comcast has said it would apply its net neutrality commitment to time warner cable, and that expires, you know, in a few short years. now, the trouble here is that the fcc's open internet rules are in total legal generality. and co-- jeopardy, and can cohen's argument is you don't really need a new, strong condition simply because the fcc will have probably figured out by 2018 how to address the issue of net neutrality. that being said, plenty members of congress want the fcc to do something on net neutrality in the specific case of this transaction, and we heard that from senator leahy yesterday. he said, you know, comcast has to adhere to these rules, we'll see ultimately what the fcc decides to do. >> host: senator franken talked about 900-plus -- 100-plus lob

by bists, do you run into these? >> guest: there are a lot of lobby bists. an analysis that we did at politico looked at the four committees that regulate comcast, the house and senate judiciary committee and the commerce or energy and commerce committee, and comcast gave to practically all but a small handful of members on all of these committees. it canvass all of its regulators on capitol hill. and it's even just outside of washington. you know, i went back to philadelphia where comcast is based, and you can just look at city could be ills and individual -- councils and individual proposals in the statehouse that comcast has lobbied on. they gave $50,000 to pennsylvania above tom corbett. david cohen actually helped raise money for corbett who's a vulnerable republican governor. it shelled out huge bucks to defeat a paid sick leave bill in the city of philadelphia. and you can find comcast lobbyists everywhere from california to chicago, all the way, of course, right here to d.c. so there's a lot more more

opponents to overcome. folks like public kwledge and free press have started making noise about this deal, but the question is whether comcast is going to go around that just given the amount it spends and its ability to talk in d.c. >> host: you also about asked privacy legislation. where does that stand? >> guest: i feel like wee talk about that every time we're here. there's plenty of interesting something happens at facebook or google or another major tech company, and sure enough there's a rush and a call to legislate on capitol hill, but it doesn't really produce actual law. it never really gets past the committee stage. privacy legislation doesn't make it onto the floor. most folks are watching surveillance reform with all of the blowup after edward snowden's leaks, there's interest in doing something. congress is going to have to return to this issue with some of these authorities expiring next year, but they're still pretty widespread disagreement over what to do with the future of the government's programs to

collect phone call logs and internet day and other communications. >> host: tony romm, another issue we always talk about is the '96 telecom act and whether it's time to rewrite that. what's the status of that on capitol hill in. >> guest: the house energy and commerce committee and the communications subcommittee led by chairman greg walden have been talking about this for some time, they've been holding hearings, having comment periods, lots of papers and statements and things, but they haven't really started writing legislation. and because the process is going to take so long, we have so many industries to wade through, it's going to be some time until we actually have a rewrite of the com act if we even get there because the politics are so tough. the thing everyone is watching is the future of cable legislation, satellite television, where that goes from here. the house and senate have started talking about this, potential for reform just because of the sunset date in the law. that'll be the next thing that moves. we talk about that, as you said, ever time. >> host: so as somebody who

covers capitol hill, how do you see the comcast deal playing out? >> guest: so there's going to be a lot of noise made about this, and with every hearing there's, you know, more headlines, there are more stories, there are more interviews done to draw attention to both the good and the bad of the deal. ultimately, congress doesn't have a say in this. as senator franken himself acknowledged. it's the fcc and the justice department that gets to decide. but congress can apply pressure. one of the things we saw in the comcast/nbc u.s. transaction was they wanted them to not use conditions in a particularly aggressive way. it was conservative argument against heavy-handed government regulation. the interesting parallel here is that while nbc and time warner cable are very different transactions, chairman tom wheeler before he got to the commission wrote a lot about the importance of merger conditions. it came up quite regularly during his appearances on capitol hill before his confirmation. plenty of republicans asked him whether he felt his previous writings were correct that, you

know, the fcc could stimulate big market changes when it comes to big transactions. and so wheeler's going to be in the spot here. it hasn't really started yet. we've only heard murmurs from republicans, but if the ncc looks like -- fcc looks like it might use pretty serious conditions, you could see a bit of a clash between the agency and capitol hill. of. >> host: tony romm with politico, thanks for being on "the communicators." >> guest: thanks for having me. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> comedian louis black will discuss politics and social issues today at the national press club. our live coverage begins at 1:00 eastern on c-span. >> we should have finished al-qaeda in 2001.

our general who was there -- but more than just the general, i think all of us. think back. we were attacked on 9/11. 3,000 americans died. more americans than died at pearl harbor. and we had al-qaeda, and we had osama bin laden trapped in some mountains called tora bora. we didn't finish 'em off. and then we let 'em escape over the other side of the mountain because we said that's pakistani territory. oh, wait. think for a moment. can you imagine during world war ii when we had admirals win the battle of midway which changed the entire war against japan. he sailed across the international dateline in the pacific and attacked the japanese. destroyed their fleet. 1942. he went across the international dateline. supposing he had turned back and said, well, that's the

international dateline, and japan has said if we don't cross the international dateline, we'll take this part of the pacific, you take that, and we'll live happily ever after. we get to these mountains in the middle of nowhere, and we allow al-qaeda to escape? makes no sense. our entire country had become more legalistic. we should have gone and finished it right then. >> this month booktv's book club selection is bing west's "the wrong war." read the book and join in the discussion at booktv.org. and live sunday, may 4th, look for our next "in depth" guest, luis j. rodriguez. his work includes the award-winning "always running" and his 2011 release, "it calls you back." find booktv every weekend on c-span2. >> the president for americans for tax reform,