c-span2. >> you are watching booktv on c-span2, with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. booktv, television for serious readers. >> coming up this morning on c-span2 on "the communicators." ..

and we'd like to welcome back to "te communicators" lawrence strickling who's the administrator of the national telecommunications and information administration. mr. strickling, if you start by telling us what it is you do and where you are in the organizational chart. >> guest: sure, peter. and thank you for having me back. i think it's our third or fourth visit to "the communicators," and we always enjoy our opportunity to sit down with you and your guests to talk about telecommunications policy. ntia is the principal adviser to the president on telecommunications and information policy issues. we're not a regulatory agency, that's the province of the federal communications commission. but we do work on internet policy, broadband spectrum, now public safety is a big part of our portfolio. so we cover a wide variety of telecommunications, internet information topics. >> host: well, and i know you're contained within the commerce department, correct? >> guest: that's correct. >> host: let's start with the internet domain, the icann

issue. something that you're working on right now is who should control, who should organize the internet domain names. and there seems to be some disagreement between congress and the administration on this. >> guest: well, it's a little more nuanced than the way you described it. in fact, the responsibility for overseeing the domain name system has been icann's responsibility going back to 1998. at that time the administration, the clinton administration determined that they wanted to move the operation, the domain name system out of the federal government and privatize it. so what we announced in march was simply the completion of what started in 1998 which was to complete that privatization of management of the domain name system into icann. in fact, icann has been performing and has been operating as a multistakeholder organization since 1998, and all

we were saying was the time had come for us to step aside and eliminate the remaining role that we have with icann in terms of these very specific technical functions: they're called the iana functions. and in that part of it we're saying that the united states no longer has to have the role it's played in terms of having this contract to designate icann to perform this work. they've been doing it well for the last 16 years, and it's now time for the united states to step aside from that. i think where the issue has been with some members of congress has been the question of the extent to which through this role the united states was able to exercise control over the internet. and, in fact, we don't control the internet. the internet is a combination of many, many different networks tied together, hundreds, thousands of stakeholders who all have a role and a part to play in terms of managing the internet and the policies that determine how the internet runs.

>> host: but wouldn't it be fair to say -- and i think this is what's coming from the house of representatives, at least in the appropriations bill -- that the u.s. has been kind of the overseer to insure that it remains free, and there's some concern if it's turned over to an international body, that it may not have that same freedom. >> guest: well, two points on that. one is we don't exercise the kind of oversight that some members of congress perhaps think we do. in large part this is all handled by all of the stakeholders; businesses, civil society, technical experts and to some extent governments who provide advice to icamn. but that has already been put in place, it's already working, so we don't actually oversee anything. our actual role in performing these funks is a clerical -- functions is a clerical role of making sure any change or update to the roots on file, that high level address book for the internet, that those changes are accurate before we pass them on to verisign for execution.

we're simply saying we'll step out of that role. we've asked the multistakeholder community -- again, these businesses, companies like cisco and google and at&t, civil society, technical experts from around the world who have worked on these issues for years -- to determine what, if anything, they want to have replace that clerical role that we perform, and that effort is just now getting underway within icann. >> host: well, joining our conversation is brian fung of "the washington post." >> thanks for joining us today -- >> guest: thank you, brian. >> appreciate your having me on the show. so, you know, to follow up on this icann issue, you know, it seems you're, as i you said it, headed to a meeting to discuss these issues in the coming days. what are you hoping to sort of accomplish there? >> guest: so icann holds three large worldwide meetings a year. we all went to singapore the week after we made the announcement in march, and there icann held public sessions with hundreds of participants to

start to collect input as to how this transition ought to be planned. in london there will be two things happening. the first is a high-level meeting of governments that's being organized by minister ed vasey of the u.k. government where we will talk about these issues, and in particular the united states' insistence that whatever replace us, it not be a set of governments or an intergovernmental organization. then the normal icann meetings will take place at which there will continue to be discussion about how to organize to develop the transition plan that we've asked to be developed by the community. so it'll be a full week of discussion and activity, but we're still at the front end of this process in terms of the stakeholders getting organized to go forward and develop the transition plan that we've asked for. >> so we talked earlier about the house of representatives, and when you went before the house to testify, you faced a lot of skepticism from some members about what, you know,

this plan actually entails. and i think part of that may have been motivated by the narrative in the media that, you know, this is the united states relinquishing control of the internet. do you think that the narrative -- how does that narrative affect the way, you know, you sold the story to congress? do you think that, you know, ntia could have done a better job explaining what was actually happening when it came to the icamn process? >> guest: i think we've been very clear in explaining what's at stake here, and i think the evidence for that is the fact that the business community largely has come out in very strong support of this, the u.s. chamber of commerce, various trade associations like the internet association, individual companies like cisco, at&t, verizon, google have all come out in very strong support of this. civil society has come out in very strong support of this. technical experts also have come out in support of this. i think we were facing questions

because it's not determined exactly what the transition plan will be. the strength of the multistakeholder process is to give the community the opportunity from the bottom up to develop a plan, and that's what we've done. some folks would like to have had us nail down exactly what the plan had to look like, but that would have depried the community -- deprived the community of a discussion they really need to have to determine how to transition the united states out of this role that we currently play. the fact that we don't have it nailed down yet because we're going to let the process work, i think, was uncomfortable to some people on the hill who wanted to know exactly how this would play out. our responsibility over the next several months will be to keep congress and other stakeholders apprised of the progress in this space and try to work through these issues due to the lack of knowledge in terms of where we're going to end up. i'm confident that the multistakeholder process is going to deliver a very strong

and well-conceived transition plan, but until we have it, it's hard to prove that to people. so we'll work with congress. we'll continue to explain what's going on and, hopefully, work through these issues with them. >> so congress has, you know, one of the proposals that's in the appropriations bill is the dot.com act which would require ntia to go through a gao, you know, study before moving forward on this icann multistakeholder plan. do you see that as being a potential setback for you as you move forward or, you know, what's -- how does ntia sort of view that requirement, you know, in the process? >> guest: well, as i said at my testimony, we have no problem with the gao doing a report and, indeed, last week the house energy and commerce committee, certain members on the committee went ahead and asked the gao to go ahead and prepare the report just as i had suggested at the hearing back in april. we have no problem with the report being performed. the dot.com act, of course, is

not yet law. it's only been passed as part of a house appropriations measure. the problem with it was that it would have held up transition and basically left it to the gao to basically become the judge and jury on a plan that's going to be put together by an entire multistakeholder community. our concern was that that indicated or could be interpreted by folks internationally as indicating that congress doesn't really trust the multistakeholder process. and yet congress, of course, has been unanimously in support of the multistakeholder model of internet governance, and we are worried that there was a little dissonance there between what congress has unanimously stated back in 2012 and then this measure to basically hold up a multistakeholder process so that the gao could look at things. again, gao will now presumably go ahead and do a study now, and we welcome that, and we'll work with that to get that review done.

>> host: larry strickling, i want to introduce another topic that ntia is working on, and that's the issue of spectrum. and you've -- is it correct to say that ntia has requested an inventory of all federal spectrum that may be available for the auctions that are coming up? >> guest: well, we have always had a list of candidate bands to be evaluated in terms of making more spectrum available to the commercial side for consumer services. i think what you may be referring to is an announcement we made several weeks ago of a new database that we've put up online to allow anyone to come online and look at all of the federal bands and see information in terms of who's using that band, how it's being used and that sort of thing. so it's our effort to put more information out into the community, but that's still in parallel to the very specific, detailed an lit you can work we do on very -- analytic work we

do on very specific bands we have already identified. so back when the president first issued his direction to us to find 500 megahertz of spectrum to reallocate to commercial use, at that time we identified, i think, about 2,000 megahertz of candidate bands to look at. and we're still working our way through that, those evaluations. so far we've identified about 405 megahertz of the 500 that could be reallocated, and, of course, two bands the fcc will be auctioning off later this year, two bands that are of particular interest to the commercial carriers. >> host: is there resistance among the federal agencies that have spectrum? >> guest: resistance isn't the right word to use. the federal agencies are committed to meeting the president's goal. the problem we face is that we have, you know, a finite amount of spectrum, we have federal agencies whose demands are growing, we have the commercial

industry which, of course, has, has seen exploding demand for more spectrum, and the challenge is how do we take these competing, increasing demands and find a way to satisfy both of them? the big advance in terms of the work we've been doing the last few years is to settle on spectrum sharing as the only way forward through this which means finding ways for the federal agencies and the commercial folks to coexist be in same -- coexist in the same frequencies, in the same locations at the same times. a lot of this was going to require new engineering work, but we're already, i think, seeing a shift in attitude by simply having come forward and saying this is the way forward. the president's council of advisers on science and technology in a report two years ago concluded the same thing, and these are the top experts in the country on these issues, and they came out and agreed with our conclusion that spectrum sharing has to be the way forward in order to work our way

through these issues and meet the needs of both agencies and industry going forward. >> so the defense department is working to consider how much spectrum they can give up for commercial uses. where are we in that process now, and, you know, how much work is left to be done? >> >> guest: so, again, we do it on a band-by-band basis. the two most recent bands that we moved over to the fcc for auction, the two bands coming up this fall are about 40 megahertz of spectrum. in the 1695-1710 range and the 1755-1780 range. that second band has been long on the wish list of the industry in terms of being able to get access to that spectrum. so we work through these issues on a serial basis looking at individual bands. so i don't predict that our work will ever totally be done because when we're done with one set of bands, there'll be another set of frequencies to be looking at.

be so this is going to be an ongoing process. >> beyond the pentagon, what other agencies are there that are considering, that ntia is considering working with to, you know, grab more spectrum? >> guest: so we work with a few dozen agencies in terms of who all has spectrum assignments. dod is by far the biggest user n. the case of the 1695 band, the principal users are noaa. so you might see a predominant use from an agency other than one of the defense arms, but generally dod is the agency that we're most working with. >> to transition to conversation a little bit, you know, as you mentioned, the fcc is, you know, working on a plan to auction off a great deal of spectrum sometime soon, and some of the driven to a project that ntia is working op which is5o firstnet,

the public safety wireless network. earlier this year chairman wheeler of the fcc said he expects firstnet to be substantially funded by the time we get to the incentive auction next year. is that your view? does that sound about right? >> guest: i don't have my own opinion on that. what i do know is congress has authorized firstnet to use up to $7 billion of spectrum auction proceeds. i'm confident these dollars will be raised through the fcc auctions. it's not particularly important to me which auction they get raised in. as long as firstnet is able to get the full benefit of those dollars assisted as it develops and builds out this nationwide public safety broadband network. the work at firstnet's going well. they're getting staffed up. they have a new chairman of the board just announced last week. she's sue swenson, very dynamic,

energetic individual who i think will be an outstanding leader of the board as et goes forward. as it goes forward. we've just part last two years been led by sam g be inn, a former wireless executive at air touch and vodafone, and sam did a wonderful job giving the organization the credibility it needed at the outset. he's decided to step aside, and sue will be taking over. so i expect we're going to see a tremendous amount of energy and activity out of firstnet here over the coming months. >> host: larry trick lipping, just from an organizational point of view, what's the interaction between ntia and the fcc? >> guest: the fcc is the independent regulatory body, so as they are dealing with rules, as they're dealing with enforcement, they have the jurisdiction to do that. we can provide input through their rulemakings in the form of administration positions, and we do that when we think the opportunity is appropriate. but in general, it's the fcc

that has the ultimate responsibility in those areas. >> host: so how much time do you spend with tom wheeler or the fcc commissioners? >> guest: tom and i talk on a regular basis. it's not scheduled, but we stay in touch with each other. >> host: larry strickling is the administrator of the national telecommunications information administration, he's also assistant commerce secretary for communications and information. brian fung covers technology for "the washington post". next question. >> so, again on this topic of the relationship between between the fcc and ntia, obviously, both work in the public safety realm. later this week chairman wheeler is going to give a keynote address at the american enterprise institute about cybersecurity. can you describe the overlap in responsibilities when it comes to public safety and where the responsibilities sort of divide? >> guest: so the fcc's primary responsibility with public safety is to be involved with

the spectrum that's being utilized by the public safety organizations, and they can set rules around those and deal with other issues that emerge. and they're dealing with a whole panoply of public safety both in terms of the spectrum used by state and local agencies, they deal with next generation 911 issues. our role is limited to firstnet. firstnet was created by congress in 2012 as a independent entity within nia with the in mission f taking 20 megahert of spectrum and $7 billion and developing a nationwide public safety broadband network. so that's been our focus. and it's really helping firstnet as they get staffed up and move forward to help them this terms of getting out and getting this network, the conception of the network, the design to the network and then getting it developed and up and running. >> so at this point, you know, i've spoken to some folks who

say that, you know, the potential for firstnet is very large, obviously, but it's also a very ambitious project, and, you know, if adequate oversight isn't provided, it could become something of a boondoggle. you have a very large, a very large sort of footprint, obviously. the wireless network will need to be accessible by all sorts of first responders across the nation. what happens to firstnet when it's not being actively used in a crisis? >> guest: in terms of the spectrum, there's -- the spectrum would have priority, or the first responders, public safety users have priority to use that spectrum. when it's not being used, there's an opportunity for firstnet to basically allow other providers or one other provider, mulls billion other providers to utilize that spectrum to serve their customers' needs. as firstnet has been evaluating options for getting this network

developed and built, one of the options that they're looking at is the idea of partnering with one or more existing commercial carriers who will then allow firstnet to take advantage of existing towers and backhaul networks and such to cut down the cost of developing the network in return for which these providers would get the ability to utilize the excess whats the i in the spectrum when it's not -- capacity in the spectrum when it's not being utilized for public safety. that's not only envisioned in the act of congress, it's actually urged and promoted by the congressional language. >> let's tush to privacy -- turn to privacy for a second. your agency has just asked for comments about big data and privacy implications surrounding big data. when the ftc, the federal trade commission, released its big data report, one of its recommendations was for congress to take a closer look at data brokers such as expeer onor, you know, some of these other companies that sell commercial

data about consumers like you and me to marketers and other companies. is your view that, you know, congress and other agencies like yourself should take a closer look at data brokers? do they deserve more scrutiny? what -- how should we be responding to these? >> guest: well, first, let me explain our role in privacy. so the president issued his blueprint on consumer data privacy back again in, i think, 2012. included in that was the consumer privacy bill of rights. so the inquiry that we started last week was in light of the white house big data report that came out several weeks ago, we've asked whether or not there are changes or tweaks we ought to be making to the consumer privacy bill of rights. the original construct back in 2012 with respect to the president's blueprint was establish principles through the bill of rights. we then at ntia would work with

industry and any interested party to develop more specific rules through what we called multistakeholder codes of conduct. which would allow for greater flexibility, greater responsiveness to problems that might emerge in the privacy sphere based on the principles established in the bill of rights. and then as companied adopted codes of conduct, they would be enforced by the federal trade commission if a company didn't follow what it had propsed its customers -- promised its customers to do. so what we've teed up is we now have the white house big data report which has identified a lot of interesting new issues, and we've gone back and said, okay, the bill of rights that we put out in 2012, does it now need to be modified in light of what the white house found in that big data report? is now, that's different from the ftc work which is very specific with respect to data brokers. data brokers is an issue we've been interested in. we haven't spoken specifically about it, and it's not directly

implicated in the inquiry we came out with last week with respect -- the white house big data report. >> host: go ahead, brian. >> so does the internet age call for a redefining of what we mean by privacy and the things that are included in it and the protections that are associated with privacy? >> guest: well, that, i think, is the big question that we're teeing up for folks in terms of the implications of big data. the report that we put out two years ago was written for the internet age. the focused on online privacy, but it was what i guess we would call small data privacy, you know, the issues of the kind of individual records that might be kept on people as they transact business on the internet. but we weren't talking about the kinds of large evaluations and analyses of data that are now being talked about today in the context of big data. so we felt we had a good framework for the internet age

as we were dealing with more individual transactions on the internet. now we're going back and taking a look at saying in this era of big data do we have to rethink things at all. i'm not convinced we will, but it's an important question, it's one we're looking to have imput from the -- input from the public on. >> host: what kind of impact did the edward snowden leaks have on your impact to revisit this issue? >> guest: on the privacy? >> host: right. >> guest: i think what it opened up was the idea that we had these privacy issues not just in terms of government surveillance, we have them in terms of how other agencies in the federal government use big data, and we have it in terms of how private industry uses it. so i think not just the issues of the snowden revelations, but i think a growing awareness of how all these different organizations use data were what with drove the decision to develop the big data report at the white house. >> host: could you see changes in how the government regulates

big data and how much they can hold on to and how they have to look at it? >> guest: well, as we look at government agencies -- and i'm not talking about the intelligence community, i'm talking about other agencies such as department of commerce which is one of the biggest data agencies in the federal government and one that, where we are looking at how we can develop that asset of data that we have. in large part that's not personally identifiable information. to the extent we have years and years of weather information, that doesn't present privacy questions at all. but we want to look across the entire universe of data collection and analysis that's being done before we draw any conclusions. >> host: brian feng. >> just to talk briefly about net neutrality, thatst on a lot of people's minds these days. verizon and netflix are engaged in a dispute about some of the interconnection that happens, you know, when netflix brings data to verizon's door, what happens to that data. and, you know, netflix has said

that verizon ought to treat that data just like it treats any other kind of data that comes to its door, and that it should open up the door and allow the data to move through, and verizon says, no, you know, netflix should pay for the extra connections that it needs when there is a surge of data moving to verizon's network. and this is kind of an issue that's not quite as visible to consumers when -- as, say, net neutrality because net neutrality deals with the last mile. but a lot of these companies that are involved in this space have suggested that, you know, maybe these are actually related issues. and the fcc has said, no, actually, these are separate issues. what's your take on that, and should net neutrality and interconnection be considered together as one and the same? >> guest: well, i think if we're going to be evaluating what the consumer experiences, we do have to take an end-to-end look at that. now, whether that means we have to start changing definitions of what do we mean by net neutrality or what do we mean by

interconnection, i'm not going to speculate on that. but it does seem important to look at the entire set of connections that are going on in order to understand whether or not a consumer is experiencing congestion or the effects of congestion in the experience that they have at their home or at their business. so in that sense i do think taking a look at the whole universe of relationships may be important in terms of understanding what's going on. i don't suggest by that that regulation ought to necessarily extend throughout every piece of that, but i think we need to understand what's important and what's not. we ought to look at the thing end to end. >> host: brian fung is with "the washington post," larry strickling is the administer every of the ntia. administrator of the ntia. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or