the 114th congress is about to begin and 2015 is shaping up to potential by he a busy year in telecommunication issues. so this week on "the communicators" we invited three technology reporters to join us to preview the year and look what the congress or fcc may do, what the administration may do. joining us, kate tummarello, brendan sass sew and brian fung. mr. sasso, let's begin with you, when we asked you what were the issues you wanted to talk about all three of you put net neutrality first. what's going to happen in 2015. >> the big telecom issue -- 2015fcc chairman champ wheeler said he wanted rules on the books by the end of the year. that's not going to happen. so now it's an issue 20615. i'm expecting the fcc will come

out with final rules on net neutrality. president obama came out in support of reclassifying broadband service under title 2 of the communications act, which would essentially make it treated like a utility. the broadband industry groups are fiercely opposed to this. so there's a lot of pressure on chairman wheeler to go that route. we raul see what happens there. and then even once the rules are on the books, the fight is not necessarily over. then there's going to be lawsuits almost certainly from the industry groups like verizon and comcast, especially if chairman wheeler does what the president wants and uses title 2. then the republicans in congress will have a response. will they try to repeal it put forward their own proposal? a fight that goes on for a long time, i think. >> mr. fung. >> i think all that is absolutely right and there's going to be a lot more to come when it comes to congress. the chairman isn't expected to

unveil his proposal until february or march at the earliest which fives an opening for republicans in congress to introduce a bill about net futility of their open. what will the chairman do in response to that? move more quickly or put him in a position where he has to too some horse trading and negotiation with congressional republicans. that's not clear yet. that's something that we'll be watching. >> you've written about this. how quickly do you expect a bill? >> i think we're looking at next month, early in the year. >> in january. indicate tummarello. >> i think it's important to keep in mind we're talking about net neutrality against the backdrop of the ocommunications racked update, and now that the republicans control the senate they kind of have that working as well. the republicans in the house said they want to get pen to paper starting in january. so we can see some movement on that soon and that's a tool for

the congressional republicans to use to push back on any net neutrality rules the think are an overreach. >> how much groundwork on a rewrite. >> a lot of hearings a lot of white papers on the issues. seems like telecom is very hot in congress right now so lots of opportunities to talk about these issues and they have said three things about the act update the com act update. there's no language but out there but they've had a lot of time to talk about it. >> how much of a change with frank palone as the ranking member of the committee, mr. soon taking over commerce in the senate, et cetera. >> i think we know where senator thune stands on this because he was the ranking member.

the communication act update is very important to him and also taking a look at tv regulations and how broadcasters deal with cable companies there's some idea where senator thune stands. i think -- we don't know about his views. hasn't been as involved in issues as the an ashe who he beat for ranking member. it's unclear how much say she'll have verse pallone so. >> it could be really interesting to see how pallone enter acts with the congress. you wouldn't see a lot of back and court between republicans and democrats on tech issues that would have made for interesting fireworks. here i think with pallone leading things you might see a little bit more consensusa

little bit more cooperation again, we don't really know a whole lot about pallone but some people said to me, he is from new jersey, new jersey is where at&t has a lot of its roots going back to the '40s and 'other 5s when it was big monopoly. pallone might be more inclined to work with industry. that's a direction he could go in. bus in general we probably won't see the kinds of fireworks we might have seen with eschew as the top democrat. >> what's another issue the fcc will be looking at. >> one thing that the fcc will continue to work towards is spectrum and incentive auctions and the fcc is still working through a tremendously successful auction of government air waves right now and one big question is, does that set up telecom companies to spend more

in an upcoming auction for broadcast air waves or does this mean they have tee pleaded themselves and now won't be able to spend as much and that's going to be one big question moving forward. the fcc will continue to work on developing how it holds the auction, the broadcast auction. i think that's going to be one big area moving forward. >> i think another big issue is going to be the mergers and 2015 the fcc has to make a decision on whether to allow comcast to buy time warner cable or allow at&t to buy directv. so those are major decisions with big impacts on the way we watch tv and access the internet. decisions that are having to be made if they allow the mergers to go forward probably be conditions. what sort of conditions will be placed on the companies. a lot of the interplay with the net neutrality proceeding what conditions will be placed on the

company. most people expect at&t and directv is getting his push bach comcast and time warner cable is more controversial. that's a big decision that chairman wheeler and the fcc and justice department have to make. >> (da sasso when do you think the timeline for decisionmaking. >> the first part of 2015 there's a shot clock, timeline the fcc is supposed to stick to, but when there are disputes the fcc pauses the shot clock so we're expecting the first part of 2015. >> kate tummarello. >> when the mergers come down you'll see a lot of reactions on he hill. some members are vocal about this stuff, for and against. so that will be an interesting kind of -- how that plays out and the com act update process and other telecome issues on the hill. >> what is tom wheeler's relationship with the hill especially now with a complete republican congress. >> i would say tense.

he is very personable and i'm sure he is charming at hearings but we have definitely seen him come in and -- rub unrubs are not -- republicans are not afraid to drill into him especially when they don't like what he is doing. there's tension how wheeler treats the republican on the commission. commissioners say they're not getting a fair shake, don't get to vote on things they want to vote on. wheeler just looks for the 3-2 vote, doesn't care about consensus, i would say the relationship is tense and no matter what wheeler does, he's going to get called to the hill for hearings kind of be grilled by these people what's his relationship with the president? >> also, little bit tense especially in the wake of the president's net neutrality statement. the sense that a lot of people havees that the chairman feels like he was sort thrown under the bus by the president when it comes to reclassification of broadband. and then on top of that there's just all sorts of net neutrality

is a much more complicated issue than perhaps the white house will let on publicly. there's a lot of legal back and forth that has to go on. there's a lot of political tussling that goes on. for the white house, i think lot of it -- they saw it as political but in the context of congress mainly. and that this is a populist issue that can set up a confrontation with congressional republicans, whereas at the fcc their job is to create the rules everyone has to live under chase much more complicated process. >> kate tummarello. we have not talked about sign enter security, "the interview" view and congress. >> that's been a hot topic after the sony hack which apparently came from north korea and is over this movie about killing the north korean leader. cyber security is definitely an issue on everyone's mind, especially as congress picks up in january, bus this is recent and kind of shocking in a way.

we haven't seen before. whether it's target or home depot, made sense we wanted financial information. not this censorship of free speech and the arts. that's an issue on everyone's mind especially with the history of cyber security legislation. this has been something we have been talking about for years. will the soapy hack be what pushes us over the finish line? we'll see. >> the hack increases the urgency. puts pressure on people too push forward a bill. i don't know it necessarily alters the sort of fundamental calculus of getting cyber done. there's still a big privacy concern, the white house issued a veto threat twice on privacy issues related to the cyber security bill and that hasn't gone away. a big question 0 as to whether -- yes, like this cybersecurity incident does

increase pressure but does it actually change the terms of debate? >> i think everybody is onboard with the basic idea that they want information sharing. they want companies and the government to do a better job sharing the data about the attacking, viruses the question is how much privacy protection do you put into the bill? that the debate going on. i don't know this incident changes that but with republicans in control they might be able to set the debate. they send a bill to the president and he is not thrilled with the privacy protections but will he veto it if this is the cybersecurity legislation that comes forward well, there be a filibuster in the senate and democrats still able to block legislation. that's the state of play. things are different now that republicans control the senate. they've been pushing a lot of smaller scale cyberbills a number just passed recently. all very minor, codifying certain programs and trying to

address the quality or the experience of the workers and the federal government on these issues. they keep passing bills but they're she smaller issue. the question is whether they can do something more bigger and more substantial. >> kate, what's another issue we'll be leaking at in 2015. >> surveillance reform debate pick up right off the bat, which is something that any company that deals with communications is watching for. key parts of the patriot act are set to entire in june. the question is going to be can the reform advocates get substantial reform through by june or is it going to be a last-minute, clean reauthorization, got to get this done to protect the done trip kind of bill. that's a debate that has raged since theddard snowden leak. so this has been happening for a while. we saw a lot of movement and then stop. with surveillance reform last year. passed the house and then nothing happened for months, and then we thought we were going to see something in the senate but couldn't come to the floor,

didn't have the votes. so now we are going to see this kind of urgency pick up because if they don't pass something, the u.s. government will lose the surveillance authority starting in june. >> that's a boon to folks who are defenders of strong surveillance programs because the closer you 2010 to the deadline, more of an argument you can make, we really need to ramp things up here. >> it can play for both side the defender says we have to protect the country, get this done there may be some in congress who say we're not going to pass it if it's not substantial reform. that would be a very intense game of chicken if that's what happens. you're also seeing a lot of companies really want u.s.a. freedom, the last bill, to get passed and were very disappoint end when it just couldn't. i think they're going to be more willing to get a little riskier and say we're not going to back something that we don't like, and time is on our side.

so it will definitely increase the tension on both sides. >> i think there were some people on the privacy end of the debate who are eager to see us go towards the cliff 0 and would give more r. to people like rand paul itch don't know if they'll really have more leverage. mitch mcconnell is in front hoff the senate. the statement he put out this is going to help terrorist kill americans. so it's hard to for know see him voluntarily push real sweeping reforms. i think he is probably going to do as little as possible. there will be some kind of reforms but forward but the reformes will try to block that. you need 60 votes to pass anything so can they muster enough to block what mitch mcconnell is pushing? maybe but i think they probable my missed their best shot in 2014 and now it's going to be sort of -- and the farther away from thed a ward snowden leaks this is fading from people's

mind and there's concern about isis and terrorism. the momentum is on the side of the people trying to defend the nsa. >> when you talk about reformers, who are you talking about? what are you talking about. >> well, patrick leahy the chairman of the judiciary committee in 2014, was the author of the u.s.a. freedom act. the main issue is the first leak that came out of edward snowden's documents which was this mass collection of information on all of our phone calls, so that the time the phone numbers, the duration of the call and that sort of mass surveillance of americans was the most shocking revelation. that's been the main debate. how do they address that. how do you curb the nsa's authority that area. so president obama took some steps to change how the nsa handles that data but. maltly they want to remove the reformers in congress so leahy, senator ron widen, and others would like to remove the nsa's control of that, that database.

>> short of large-scale comprehensive nsa reform i think one thing that could be prepared to move is reform of the electronic communications privacy act which got a tremendous amount of support in the house. a bill that would essentially update the nation's laws when it comes to e-mail privacy requiring potentially warrants for law enforcement to get access to e-mail files. this is something that i think a lot of people would potentially support, in the senate as well. if we can't get something like comprehensive nsa reform bill done perhaps something more like that could be palatable. >> if they get to the floor that would have the support it needs to pass. the question is could it get to the floor? it had a majority of the house supporting it this past year but never came to the floor. i think some people in congress are hesitant to bring it up

because it could change the same argument width nsa reform. could change law enforcement's able to access to go every criminals about it is hugely supported, and if it ever got to the floor have to believe it would have the votes to pass. >> i wonder now with a governing majority that republicans are interested in i getting thursdaying done and making look like they can actually govern instead of being the opposition party. if there's something like reform, perhaps this time it could come to the floor. >> is there an area of agreement between the republican congress and the president on this issue? >> on the electronic communications privacy act? >> right, on privacy. >> i think pretty much everyone is supportive of just the idea of changing the way that the sort of warrants that police would need to access e-mails. the administration -- the justice department was sort of resistant at first but i think they're onboard. it has pretty broad support. the question, why it has not

happened. this has been around for a long time, before the edward snowden leaks. i think there's some resistance from certain key lawmaker to -- they might not oppose the idea generally but if we're going to give there is to the privacy side what does law enforcement get? if you're at the bargaining table, what are you going to give us? that hasn't been hashed out in any way. so i think that, like kate said itch it goes to the floor there's broad support. the questions if there's enough pressure or attention on this issue to actually force it to you committee. >> kate tummarello what about privacy? do you think we'll see anything done with price? >> -piracy. >> i can imagine lawmakers are eager to work on piracy but the house is work only a copyright review and that's been going on and they'll have more hearings and then looking to decide what they want to do with the review and piracy is something that could come up there. we have seen a lot of hesitancy

to touch anything involving online piracy that could ignite protest, and we have seen google come out against the idea that anything needs to change dramatically in terms of what people cans access online to prevent piracy from happening. so that's fresh in lawmakers' minds, especially in the wake of the sony hack, which brought to light some e-mails that some members of the hollywood industry sent about this. so definitely see lawmakers talk about copyright broadly. i can't imagine there's a huge hunger to push on something that has been so cycle in the past, including the past couple of days. >> gentlemen, anything to add to that? >> kate is the expert here. >> well, she also mentioned google. and going has had some issues with the european union especially the regulations there. are these ankle-biters for

google? or are these serious, complex issues? >> i think antitrust is a big issue for google. i think there was this resolution in the european parliament which suggested maybe they ought to tear google apart, which got a lot of attention and split the search engine off from the rest of the company. i don't think many people think that's actually what is going to happen but does put pressure on the european commission to take a harder line on google. we had the same debate in the united states on the same issues and ultimately the federal trade commission decided not to do anything. i think that the google really won that fight in the u.s. and so now it's still fighting that in europe. there's a little bit of a different dynamic. there's resentment to an american company that is so successful in europe and they don't like the way it dominates people's access to the internet issues about the nsa and this resentment about the u.s. having access to europeans'

information. a lot of play there that's working against google. ultimately i don't think they're going to force going toll split off the search engine. could there be real restricts on the why google organizes search reresults? yes, i think that's probably going to happen. we'll see what happens there. >> brian fung, another international issue. coming up in 2015. icam. >> that's going to be a big issue moving forward. at this point it's kind of unclear as to what kind of steps need to be taken. there's the folks i talk to say there's a lot of people are kind of in a holding pattern. especially when it comes this idea of transitioning u.s. authority away from the internet meaning an addressing system and republicans approved a proposal that would basically

prevent obama from funding any kind of projects to move -- devolve u.s. authority away from the system but as we have seen that process has already kind of been moving along of its own accord and so it's not clear what republicans really gain by doing that. and at any rate there's a lot of discussion that has to happen on a multilateral basis before any further movement can happen. >> would it change fundamentally how the internet is regulated? would it we see change here in the states? >> for the average consumer th probably won't notice a thing. there's a lot of what the discussion is about is about the future of who has authority to determine changes to the internet infrastructure. which is sort of by definition a very political kind of debate. how much authority should china

and russia have to determine outcomes, how much authority should the unites nations have to determine outcomes. a lot of the pushback on the united states devolving authority for ina has sort of focused around well, the united states is this bastion of free speech and if we can't ensure that the internet remains free and open, then the internet will be harmed. well as i sort of said that process has already begun. the united states has by devolving authority officially actually takes the moral high ground by saying we recognize that this is an international multistakeholder process. we're going to sort of officially recognize that. and acknowledge that the internet is a much more tie verse -- much more diverse play than it was when i first began.

>> kate tummarello, how much outcry in congress over the changes to regulations. >> huge outcry. from congressional republicans they considered a number of bills and like brian said, one measure got attached to the overall spend bill. so there is this limit on the obama administration right now. however that expires in september and while the administration had said it wanted to begin the transition process in september, heard from many people who think that is just not possible at this point. there isn't a plan in place, there isn't consensus in place. put a plan in place. i can't imagine that, like brian said the bill that managed to get passed as part of the funding bill will have any human consequence on the administration's plans, but whatever happens next will certainly provoke some anger from some republicans who think this is opening up the internet to russian control or chinese control. we will see. i can't imagine that they'll be quiet when this starts to move forward but that's a while out.

>> -- brendan sasso, you beat a path between the hill and the fcc. where else do you look? what other agencies are important or what other areas are important to keep an eye on? >> obviously like any regulatory area what the industry groups say isoing to matter a lot. what the field with the fcc. the fcc looks what the public interest groups say. in terms of within government, the federal trade commission is also important. also possible that if the ftc reclassifies broadband under title 2, that will actually remove some of the ftcs authority. the ftc regulates in the areas that agencies don't, and so if broadband is considered a common carrier service and is under stricter fcc control that would remove the ftc's authority to police consumer protection issues. that would go to the fcc. recently the consumer financial protection bureau sued sprint on

the issue of putting bogus charges on people's phone bills. so that was an issue that i think -- that's an area that the consumer protection bureau has not been involved in before so that's a new agency part of created in the dodd-frank wall street reform bill. and so i think the question of how much -- how vigilant will they be in this area, their theory was that sprint was acting as a payment processor by putting charges on people's phone bills. so that this first time they acted against a phone company. we'll see if they're more active. >> we'll put you all on the spot here 30. second each. what's something we have not talked about that we need to talk about? brian fung begin with you. >> one thing we haven't talked about yet is patents. and we'll probably see much more renewed efforts to push through patent bill in the new year. there's a lot of talk about how

patent reform advocates are going to do a lot more to talk up a provision called the covered business method some they wanted to include last year but had to back down on for fear it would kill the bill. there's a lawsuit right now that deals with the first kind of business method petition and if it turns out poorly for the patent reform advocates you can expect to see a lot more effort and interest being poured into expanding cdm. >> brendan? >> i think tv issues would be a big one. could happen -- this would be a retransmission issue. often the broadcasters pay the cable providers, something that could get addressed. a lot of attention there people think the broadcasters are charging too much, and then that sort of part of the broader tv regulation issue. there's what the fcc is looking at which is whether to give more protections to online video services treat them the same

way as cable companies. that would give. the the same sort of protections to get access to broadcast content which could allow these online video services to more directly compete. with cable. that's a big set of issues that while a complex web of regulations but will get addressed. >> kate tummarello. >> going with immigration reform which is something that a lot of the companies we cover care about. obviously it's on a -- not a telecome issue but they're worried about filling the high-skilled jobs and obama took steps to address a lot of the problem inside the immigration system but high-tech got left out, and they're going to make sure they don't get left out next time. a lot of talk about the fact that high-tech immigration reform is one of the few areas where people agree in congress, and the white house is onboard too. can it move on its own? that remains to be seen but something that gets a lot of attention. >> kate tummarello, politico. brian fung, "washington post," brendan sasso, national journal.

this is "the communicators" on c-span. >> next on c-span 2 national organization for women president, terry o'neill talk abouts the minimum page and preducttive rights. then in an interview with representative election ken buck of colorado, president of the incoming republic republic freshman class. late their association of american law schools host a panel on president obama and the separation of powers between the branches of government.