with the fcc fully staffed, we thought we would take this opportunity to look at some of the telecommunications policy that might be looked at by the fcc and by the congress. we are joined by three working reporters. >> what is the main item on the agenda, in your view? >> they are spending their time between a couple of things. the main piece of their time is being spent on broadband stimulus, or the plan they are putting together. they are holding 23 or so workshops, bringing industry players are anyone who had

anything to stay -- to say about broadband in the u.s. and how it can be made better and expanded to more people. that is the big focus. another one is going into the wireless -- wireless industry and trying to get a better sense of the state of competition there, who the main players are, what information to make available to consumers, and what the commission can do to make that and more consumer friendly industry. >> let's start with the broadband policy. the sea a broad ban national policy -- do you see a broad ban national policy coming this fall, and word is the stimulus did in? >> the actual plan is due after a big chunk of the stimulus money for broadband funds has been spent. we all know that is probably not the time line that anybody in this space would have wanted, but that is how congress that it.

how do you make that a profit building experience for them? then you have the commerce department and the usda who are charged with $7 billion of grant money actually going through small and large organizations and trying to figure out who to give the money to. i think the idea is that the stimulus money is supposed to be a short-term hit to try and get broadband into places where it may not have been, while the fcc is looking decades down the road. they are trying to change how people think about internet and make it be more like electricity and less like some service that you would pay for that is nice, but you do not

necessarily needed. the third goal, how we will get there, it is going to be interesting to watch. >> the sea and activist fcc in the next -- do you see an activist fcc in the next few months. >> they are collecting data right now. they are asking a lot of questions. we are told that in the next couple of months, things will start to get a little more activist. that means they will start making decisions about what we need to know and where we need to push. for example, if you are talking about the definition of a high- speed internet access line, then we will start to make some decisions. is that -- is the typical dsl connection good enough or not?

that has not happened yet. right now they are just asking. >> i think that if they did not start to actually take the answers that are getting and take the comments from industry players and consumers and actually start to use those to make some decisions or start floating some ideas about what they might do, the commission might start to take a little bit of heat from the public interest groups who have been saying -- the commission has been saying they wanted to be a data driven agency. every decision they make cannot be made until they have sufficient intermission and numbers to back up their decisions and their ideas and what they are pushing out. most of their actions so far have been asking for information, saying they are opening it up for comment. please let us know what you think. they did not start taking some

of that and do something with it, or showing the public that they are doing something with it, pushing for their larger agenda, they might start to get some friction. >> what about congress? how much oversight of the stimulus money and broadband policy are you seeing? >> i think that congress spent quite a bit of time laying out the logistics, and now they are waiting to see what happens from whatfcc. i imagine the sense -- the senate commerce committee and others are also waiting like we are to see a lot of the data. we will know more after february once the report is due to congress. i also want to touch on the wireless competition issue, because that is another thing that congress has been pushing very hard about. the senator who heads the antitrust subcommittee had

pressed very hard for thefcc to look into this. that along with broadband are the two topics that have been taken right out of the gate. a third topic that a lot of people may be wondering about is net neutrality, keeping the internet open, and that sort of thing. it was something that president obama mentioned a few times on the campaign. he mentioned it again back when he unveiled the big cyber security report, and that is another issue that they will get to in time. >> we will come back to that. anything else to be said about broadband before remove on? let's move on to the wireless issue that you brought up. both the chairman and the lead republican or the senior republican, robert mcdowell, but spoke about wireless policy recently. i want to show you a little bit of that and then get your reaction.

>> the item of the notice does go beyond what was understood to be narrowly, to look more broadly at all the elements that affect what we understand to be immobile marketplace. it is an important step in the process of laying a solid foundation for predictable, backed based competition policy in the wireless sector, a process that will continue with other competition reports that the agency is responsible for. competition is important for many reasons, including that it produces low prices and high quality for consumers. competition is also the mother of invention, which makes it especially important in a fast- changing marketplace like communications. today's competition notice is an essential companion to the innovation and investment notice that we discussed earlier, and vice versa. >> the commissions longstanding

policy to allow competitive market forces rather than man and control regulations, to foster the development and investment in what -- wireless networks and services has led to a remarkable advances. thus, i hope that we will proceed with care, mindful that any future action reconsider should aim to attract more private investment capital rather than deter it. >> what were they talking about? >> there were talking about what could be characterized as whether or not government needs to eventually step in and see how competitive that space is. some folks would argue that companies like at&t and verizon have a stranglehold on the market. some of the smaller players in that space have argued that for some time. right now, as they are doing

with the broadband plan, the fcc is compiling a lot of data. that process began at the meeting you do show. they are looking at that, and at the same time, the republicans are saying let's not be hasty. let's not intervene too much, because these mobile marketplaces are thriving right now, as a result of us taking a light touch. >> it is important to remember that wireless is getting a lot of attention. it is considered absolutely critical to the broadband plan, especially in the rural areas, where i do not see fiber being connected to every home out in rural montana. you find essentially two different industry sectors coming together. in the internet, there is a tradition with a lot of advocacy behind it towards keeping it

open. in the wireless space, they have not had that kind of regulation, and they are just trying to ask questions about where to let the market forces right through and where to poke a little bit and make sure everybody has access. >> also asking questions about what parts of the country do not have meaningful competition, our people not have access to wireless that they do in other parts of the country. >> one thing commissioner mcdowell also said at that meeting was that look at how successful the wireless industry has been over the past decade. look at how much it has grown, year over year, which you do not see often in an economy like this. one of the things he argued that was echoed by the new commissioner said that one of the reasons it has thrived like it has is because it has been

left to market forces. it has been left to the companies to make decisions that take the internet approach. on the other side of that coin, there is the argument that enter mentioned, that there is not all people in all cities or towns of this country having access to four or five carriers, or even one. >> another interesting point, maybe at the micro level, something that will be woven into this larger examination is the work that they have begun, looking into a particular instance that involves apple and the popular ipod device, at&t, and google. there were some claims that apple had rejected a google application for the iphone, and

they basically requested some responses from the companies to get an idea of what is going on in that space. that investigation on a micro level could shed some light on how this commission plans to proceed in the big picture. >> that was mainly zeroing in on these exclusive contracts for partnerships that a carrier can have with the hands that maker, which is pretty common. sprint has it, and the most well-known one is with at&t and the iphone. the commission is trying to zero in on it that kind of agreement hurts competition and reduces choice for consumers, not just in the handsets, but with the applications that go with them. >> i think they are being really careful on that one, because obviously, once you start talking about the iphone, you tend to freak out.

at&t is a multi-year agreement with apple to market the iphone. they will not actually tell you how long it is. it is not illegal, but it is unusual. most agreements last less than a year. the idea is to share the risk between the developer and the carrier. the iphone is sort of the poster child for what is the the right or wrong about these exclusive agreements. apple and at&t have to beat back the forces, but they do it differently. at&t told the fcc they do not have any choice, it is apple's decision. they are in partnership with them, and they will be regulated the same as anyone else's, should the commission decide to do something. they have not really made any decisions yet. at this point they are just hoping.

>> they made it clear it is not an official investigation. they are just asking questions. >> center called hope that this issue, too. >> he had a very high-profile hearing -- senator cole. >> he brought some of the stakeholders to the table and try to figure out from his perspective what the state of competition is. he was very critical of companies like at&t and verizon, and has really pushed the fcc to take action. >> could this lead to the demise of this agreement? is there any sign? >> recently, some of the analysts have been suggesting that the agreement should go away without any sort of regulation.

if the agency really wants to do something, that is a low hanging fruit item. it is true that consumers actually complained about not being able to get an iphone if they have a carrier that is not at&t. is especially true in rural areas -- it is especially true in rural areas. that is not that hard to fix. how they do it will be the focus of a lot of flurry of activity. there may be some logic to saying all of you out in the marketplace, do what you need to in order to create these new handsets, but did not have an endless exclusivity agreement. the have not told me that that is what they are going to do, but reading what they say about consumers, that is a top complaint. i get e-mail from readers who

complain about it. >> they have not been explicit about what that plan on doing in this area. that is a low hanging fruit for them to say that they decide this is something that they can do. i have not had any indication of what the plan on doing now. after the meeting, they were asked what they plan on doing now that they have the responses from apple, att, and mobil. the chairman said the responses were very interesting, but that is as far as he would go on it. >> what about congress? they could take action on this. >> they could, i think that senator kohl and others are waiting to see where the fcc goes on this. he did issue a reaction and the letters were due.

he and his staff for watching this very carefully, as were members of the house. it is to be continued at this point. >> you also introduced the topic of net neutrality, network management. what kind of legislative or regulatory action do you foresee, if any? >> right before august recess, they introduced the net neutrality bill, which mirrored similar proposals we have seen in the past. they wanted to get that out there and lay down that marker. from the fcc standpoint, they are preoccupied with all the deadlines and work on the broadband plan and world competition. on capitol hill, i think we can expect to see a lot more in this space. i would imagine they will reintroduce the net neutrality

bill. a wild card that some have questioned is represented rebounder who chairs the communications subcommittee on energy and commerce -- representative rick bowsheucher. a lot of stakeholders have said that he was clear on his position in the past, so we expect him to be a prominent player. people are scratching their heads about why he is not on the front lines. a lot of other folks have said he has a lot of other issues on his plate. >> 3 seen a flurry of lobbying activity both for and against -- are you seeing a flurry of lobbying activity for and against the bill? >> no, i have not seen a flurry of activity. that is because of the other priorities that are out there. i would imagine that the longer

the fcc stay silent on the issue, the more we will see from the lobbyists. >> all they have said is that they reinstated the fact that it is a pro net neutrality statement. >> we do not really know where they are. >> the other thing to mention is that when the chairman was asked about it at the confirmation hearing, he was very careful with his answer. i do not think i heard the term "open" in his answer. he talked a lot about competition and innovation. he made some statements to kim and one of his interviews began one of his interviews, but we

have not gotten any indication of what he means by that. the definition has evolved over time to where we need a new term to be able to debated. -- to debate it. >> some of this will be held in limbo until the decision comes down. comcast said the fcc did not have the authority of our jurisdiction to tell them how they could manage their network. that is now locked in court. i am not sure when that decision is expected out. >> they just had to file their preliminary papers, so probably not this year. >> there may not be a whole lot of action or even lobbying activity until that decision becomes more imminent. >> it is important that his

general counsel are figuring out how they need to proceed, or if they should proceed in any way. >> speaking of comcast and court dates, there recently was a court decision regarding comcast and media ownership. what was that, and what was the net result? >> it was a big win for contrast -- for comcast. the court struck down a rule that had been put in place by kevin martin, with the help of a couple of democrats, that would cap the subscribership that any single cable operator has at 30% of the market. in a pretty strongly worded opinion, the court struck down the whole thing and tossed it out, which is unusual even for this court here. now there is no cap. the practical effect is that comcast, if they wanted to,

could more easily go in and buy a smaller operator like cox or cablevision. in the broader perspective, it speaks lot to the ability of the commission to go for and try to regulate competition. the court said that the decision had been made, that they were arbitrary and capricious in making this decision, that they ignore the court's previous instruction to look at other markets, and they were pretty harsh about it. if anything, they are going to be careful as they go forward. they want players in the market, but doing something as blunt as just saying here is your cap, and you cannot go above this,

that may not fly anymore. >> that decision may not be the end of the story. after that came out, some of the stake holders that opposed it said they will go to congress and they will push for legislation. we do not know if that is the end. >> what else is on the fcc's agenda in the coming months? >> there will be other competition inquiries they are making. the wireless is the beginning. they will be looking at the cable industry and probably expand that out to some of the others. they are engaged in some other, i would call them behind the scenes type activities. they have a big fcc reform staff set up to try to figure out how to change the agency. the last time they did this, it

resulted in some legislative changes. the person who actually led the effort the last time around is doing it again this time. her name is mary beth richards. the other thing they are doing is not very sexy, but could have some are ranging implications. they are doing a top to bottom review of their data that they have of the industry. they are looking to see what they did not have, and what they might need to answer some critical questions like is there competition in this particular space? some of the preliminary statements from officials are that the data that have not very good. it is not compile very well, it is old and scattered across different industries. it is an open question as to whether they will actually decide that they need to compel

some data from the industry. they are not easily given up. i think those are long term. i doubt we will see any real action on either of those things within the next year, but it is worth keeping an eye on, because they could eventually come around and say we need to have data on all your subscribers so we can decide where we need to go in and week the plan. >> speaking of data, a new bill has been introduced by senators rockefeller and snowe regarding the internet and presidential powers. >> that is the most controversial part of the bill. the bill introduced earlier in the year is a very broad cyber security bill. they introduced it before the

administration came out with its 60 day review. since that point, their staff has been changing the bill and talking to stakeholders. there was one section of the bill that people worried would essentially give the president the authority in a cyber emergency to flip the off switch on the internet. that scared a lot of people. i know that rockefeller's staff did not have the intention to convey that message, so they have been finessing the language there. the latest draft we have seen over the august recess is a bill that is structured in a way that puts workforce issues, ensuring that we have a cyber security work force in the private and public sectors that can really support increasingly complex and dangerous attacks.

they are definitely massaging the bill. they have taken out a lot and added a little bit. that is definitely a hot topic, and something the administration has said is a priority. >> d.c. the administration being interested in telecommunications issues -- do you see it being interested in telecommunications issues? >> absolutely. they are choosing carefully where they will intervene, or where they will throw support for particular issues on the cyber security bill. creating a better developed national cyber security plan on how they would cope with a severe threat has been something that president obama has been upfront about ever since his campaign. he has pledged to create a cyber

security czar position in the white house, which is still in deep. that is the cause of anxiety for people who are saying we need to get on this and have some fixes in our system that we know are flawed and need more secure safeguards. when some of these bills come out, they are looking at ways to strengthen how the agencies look at their networks and the type of standards that have to live up to, as well as the workers who are in charge of securing them. everyone is looking for some movement towards making our internet networks safer and more immune to the tax we are all hearing so much about these days. >> health care and the economy are sacking the oxygen out of the room in so many quarters here in washington d.c.

the see something happening on the fcc and the congressional level, plus their 3 unknown new players on the fcc. mcdowell and cox are well known. you have the new chairman. >> i did not seek a lot of concrete action happening until later this year. when we see that, it will probably be about the national broadband plan. you will see indicators of going in one direction or another. we will not see a hard court decision. the agency is just too new. i would put my money on seeing action on the cyber security bill. we might see some for action in the senate. that would be my debt, before the end of the year. >> i would like to place a