about the physical condition of pennsylvania. "washington journal" -- live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> thank you for joining us for "the communicators." washington, d.c., was the site of the 2010 government 2.0 expo, attended by experts interested in losing -- in using technology to bring a more open government citizens. there are also interested in selling technology to the government. in this edition, will meet some of the attendees, starting with the founder of bob riley media -- of o'reilly media. >> when you set this up, what was the purpose? >> there is a technology revolution happening in the private sector. cloud computing, mobile phones, all delivering amazing capabilities into the hands of citizens. government technology also needs

or refresh. -- a refresh. need to rethink how we deliver services to citizens. -- we need to rethink how we deliver services to citizens. it is time to rethink the whole enchilada, so to speak. everything we take for granted. trying to tell a story about a government acting as a platform provider as opposed to a plot -- as opposed to an application provider -- what does that mean? there is a really great example -- the apple iphone. the old model of delivering a smartphone looked a lot like government procurement. they think about the features, they give it to you -- end of story. it either succeeds or fails. apple did something different. they created a fabulous first- generation iphone, but then they turned it into an application

platform for developers. they have been joined by nearly 200,000 applications written by people who do not work for them. it seems like a wonderful metaphor for how government programs ought to work. the best government programs do work that way. the government acts like a platform provider so that we get more for less. investing in technology enables the private sector. that is a lot what the federal cio is trying to do with this initiative. add we turn government assets into a more robust, scalable -- how do we turn government assets and to go -- into a more robust and scalable thing? there is people on the internet or mobile phones -- the government collects that data. it is expensive to put up sites. the bootstrap that operation. similarly, the gps, which reagan made open for civilian use in

1983. president reagan was the guy who enabled new services like foursquare. without that decision, we would not have those private sector investors. >> is a justice of the areas of the government open to this idea of allowing people to doss is it just specific areas of the government open to this idea -- is it just some areas of the government open to this idea of allowing people to create applications? >> there is no question that there are new ideas. many people are excited here. there are also many people who are on the fence. there are many people who are doubtful. if you look at the history, for example, of the personal computer -- one of the biggest computer companies was headed by ken olsen. he says, the pc is just a toy.

guess what happens? fachange happens whether you lie it or not. there is an opportunity for forward-thinking agencies and forward-thinking members of congress, 4-thinking government officials at all levels -- forward-thinking government officials at all levels -- to take this opportunity to cut costs by the government. when you look at cloud computing, you could literally save millions of dollars. we are in tight times. this morning, when i asked randy levin about the benefit of switching to cloud e-mail apps he said they save the $5 million. he said, we get to survive. we're surviving our budget crisis. there are so many opportunities in the cheap technology that has

come onstream. we need to broaden our definitions to include some of these new product technologies. the cost of things that used to be very expensive are coming down radically. there is a huge opportunity for the government to take advantage of that. by designing programs correctly, you can actually get more for less. >> since you have started putting these forums together, do you find that environment and interest in trying to get more people involved in this process is changing? >> absolutely. something like this really benefits from the kind of visibility that we're able to give to innovators. if you make innovators into heroes, at some point, people start to pay attention. other people want to be like them.

when you see the sea at all of this tiny city in texas build these things -- the cio of this tiny city in texas build these things, you say, why can we not do this? i am on the board of this nonprofit. we're trying to get young people to come to cities to build the next generation of civic offering. there are enormous opportunities for technology to make a difference in government. people are getting inspired to do that. >> if this keeps going, what does this mean for the consumer of this information? >> when you build platforms, you almost always get unexpected results. when the air force put up the gps satellites, they did not expect things like chickens --

foursquare checkins. we have seen the explosion of turn-by-turn maps using the dedicated gps device is. it is now on your everyday smart phone. s.s device i this is remarkable. it was once ideal for the military and now it is in the pocket of every citizen, potentially. the other thing i think i want to mention here -- i think there are some really big opportunities in health care. there have been a lot of misunderstandings because of all of the politicization of the health care debate about what health i.t. means and what the opportunities are. the average citizen imagines the next generation of garment and help id as something like the board in star trek warehouse --

health i.t. as something like the borg in "star trek." the funding was given and greatly expanded by the recovery act. it is a brilliant exercise in what i am calling "government as a platform." on the one hand, you have these projects -- nihm direct and hhs connect. one is for connecting institutions and one is for connecting doctors and patients. these are incredibly small and focused software products, a little bit like a web server. it does one, simple thing well. -- one simple thing well. it does not deliver records, but it forces the communication between the systems that do the delivery. the marketplace of providers is

less. the recovery bill puts in place a large part of the money -- 12 billion -- $20 billion or more -- in direct payments to doctors and hospitals and labs to actually enable what they call meaningful use of electronic medical records. it is really interesting as an opportunity for the government to provide mechanisms and incentives. they're saying to the private sector, go to town to see what invented things you can do. we're seeing a revolution in medical information interchange that goes way thatthe past. -- way beyond the past. i have the device that i carry all the time with me -- a little motion sensor. it reports my daily activities. i have lost about 15 pounds in the last few years. i have a spill at home. when i step on it, it reports my

weight 0-- a scale at home. when i step on it, it reports my weight automatically to my website. this is happening at the consumer level. we're getting new kinds of devices and monitoring. there are innovations happening in health care because of this platform-like infrastructure. >> that was the conference organizer, tim o'reilly. while most attendees come from the u.s., some come from all over the world as far as australia. senator lundy is a member of the australian better -- federal parliament and part of an expert -- part of an effort to expand broadband availability throughout australia. >> does the term gov 2.0 mean the same thing in australia as it does in the united states? >> i think it does.

people are understanding in using the internet. -- and using the internet. saying gov 2.0 relates it to government. it is helping them understand what we're about. >> is there a desire for those that you serve with and government to get more transparent via technology? >> we have a top-level policy commitment to making did a more sensible by australians and also -- more accessible by all this trillions. -- by all australians. there has been some legislative change recently. we had two acts of parliament -- the freedom of immigration amendment act and the information commissioner act, which both change things. it provides new objectives that make the difficult position of information public and less a case is made. it also puts in place statutes

which will have overarch and responsibilities -- overarching responsibilities for managing information. it is a new high-level position will help us put in place being gov 2.0 policies that we want. >> who were the drivers of those legislations? who will make this happen? does it work top down? >> in australia, it is a bit of both. the political commitment is there, but there is also a groundswell of people who care about government, who want government to be more participatory, who want to engage more effectively. so it is a combination of political activism and grass- roots activism. it helps australia leap ahead in achieving what we would like to out of gov 2.0 and making that transformation to the more engaging and interactive as a government. >> is there quantitative way to

look at how the residents of australia have responded to this? >> we have some new web sites -- websites would show the interest in the changes is really strong. -- which show the interest in the changes is really strong. our national library has got an initiative under way which allows people to help go through character recognition of old newspapers that are stand in as part of the archive and collection. people are helping with the work. they're not being paid. there volunteers. -- they are volunteers and they are contributing to an enormous amount. there is a new citizen portal that allows citizens to share as much of their personal information as they want and the government responds with the

kind of information that they can. we do not have a quantitative analysis. i think that will come as the investment increases. >> there is discussion in your country about broadband and how much of the country is getting it. could to encapsulate -- could you encapsulate the nature of that discussion? >> there has been a huge policy commitment -- up to $43 billion. we have just had a study that was released publicly. network will our priva extend to 93% of the population at 100 megabytes per second. the final 4% will get it too through another service. it is a wholesale-only, open-

access network that will be independent the -- be independently-regulated. it will transform australia. that means our investment in gov 2.0 and online services will not exacerbate the digital divide because of its national broadband investment. >> we have a discussion in this country about the same issue. we also talked about how much government should be involved. why not let the private sector take up, as far as bringing up broadband to more rural areas? >> we have been in that place and had that debate. one of the reasons the government is able to justify and make the case for this national broadband plan investment is because our previous dominant incumbent telecommunications carrier was able to gain the regulations so much that they suppressed the

proliferation of broadband. we did not have a prop -- we did not have cross-platform competition. we had all sorts of problems. it is kind of ironic. that under investment in telecommunications infrastructure created the conditions that allowed us to be able to proceed with one of the most elegant telecommunications policies designed to close the digital divide. i am very proud of that. i think that this overbuild will set australia up to have one of the most robust networks and the world. >> and the political front, is this an effort that is mainly supported by your party or was a bipartisan? >> it was bipartisan up to about a month ago. we're heading for an election. the conservative party has decided not to support this particular initiative. makingorking towards that not happen. the broadband network is at

risk. it is an unfortunate development. i think it reflects their tendency to support the incumbent and monopolistic approach of the past, where the market has clearly failed. we tested the market before embarking on this process. the market was not able to deliver the sort of solution that the australian people were calling for. >> how do you bring fiber to all of those separate areas? >> australia is quite densely gathered around the coast line. canberra is the largest inland city at 360,000 people. the implementation study did a very detailed social analysis of what a lot work -- of what the network would look like. it determined -- we thought 90%. implementation study says that

is cost-effective to extend that to 93% of the population. we have published advice and we will follow that. >> what about content and filtering? what is the nature of that discussion? >> the government policy is to proceed with an internet filter. that is something we're still considering. the minister is still consulting would be isp and industry. it is very controversial. i have logged about this matter. i would encourage people to check out my blog. it is a government shut -- it is a controversial policy that the government has yet to legislate on. the filters are not available because the legislation has not been prepared. those discussions are ongoing with industry. them are their free-speech issues? how does that factor in? -- >> are their free-speech --

there free-speech issues? how does that factor in? >> absolutely. it is part of the nature of the controversy around the proposal. a lot of people strongly feel that to apply a filter in the way that is proposed offends the principle of the open internet. on the other hand, we have many others who say, we have responsibility to block the type of content that is targeted by the builder. >> one of the big discussions in the telecommunications world is along the issue of the reclassification of some broadband service in order to bring more control. to those discussions take place in the austrian government? -- do those discussions take place in the australian government? >> they are starting to. the discussion will develop. it is very rock and emotional at

the moment, as you understand -- emotional at the moment, as you understand. what are the policies of the various search engines? i do they operate? it is a little more complex. -- how do they operate? it is something we're talking about. it is very controversial in australia. >> good to offer our country some advice about broadband -- could you offer our country some advice about broadband? >> there is a pull at which it does not make business sense to invest in a brand new -- a point at which it does not make sense to invest in a brand new network. we're subsidizing tel co to rollout the network. it is just providing more money in to build, then to sustain a

competitive pricing regime. you need to look at industry structure. the independently-regulated wholesale price really governs and drives that accommodation -- competition. it is really the structure of the markets and how you create competitive tension. >> that was senator kay lundy, a member of the australian federal permit -- -- kate lundy a member of the australian federal parliament. next, we hear from ms. lawson who talks about saving the state money. >> what do you do for

california? >> i am a deputy director of that division which does a couple of things. we manage the technology services board -- the legislative board. i also work with constituent groups, primarily the web master universe, including 500 web masters across the state of california board doing some really new and innovative things with the web. we want to save the state a ton of money. >> how does that work? >> they have a meeting every couple of months. we demonstrate something that we have found that is free. one of the last things we demonstrated was something that showed how you could build a widget through these press releases and youtubes. within two months, we had two million impressions.

how do we get our checks? how are the laws changing? we wanted -- they wanted instructional videos. the twitter feed is being run like a help desk. if you are unemployed in the state of california and you have employed for unemployment benefits -- applied for unemployment benefits, we will give you instructions. >> before that, to get that kind of information, you would print paper? >> print paper, call a phone line and wait, search the website. we have changed the way that the use technology in order to meet the demand. the state of california has a 12.6% unemployment rate right now. we have three for zero days per month. -- furlough days per month. we're trying to fill in the gap.

>> is it survival mode to save money? is it streamlining the process? >> we have an immediate need. what do we do? how do we do it? the wave is coming and we needed to know what to do. >> as far as how constituents of california depend on these services, what is their relationship to how they use these technologies? to most people like it? is it confusing? how do you help them through that? >> we do get a couple of complaints per month. they can call the phone line to complain and find out what to do. we're not worried about it. the employment development bert and does over 80% of their transactions online. -- development department does over 80% other attractions on

line, which saves them a lot of money. >> -- of their transactions online, which saves them a lot of money. >> were people happy? >> i think people find -- like finding new ways to do something. we have a lot of stress on their system. we have to do something. the creative ideas are getting more speed than the would have and the past. 0-- in the past. >> talk about the role of cloud computing. >> we've done several interesting things in cloud computing. we have competing priorities. you have a federal mandate. we have the priority of doing other work, including some of

the edd systems. the cloud is great. we have brought up the website within a month with a hosted solution using open source. it is great. e-hub is our e0mail -- e-mail protection.spam there is a lot of movement toward the cloud, but we're not moving everything. >> as far as not moving everything -- are you concerned about privacy, especially when you move some of these systems over?

>> of course. that is why we are not moving everything. we're taking it slowly. we're looking at everything in the same way as it was not a cloud solution. if you rip off the label, a cloud really means nothing. if a hosted solution is another way -- it is not magical or mystical. you have the same analysis to do. sometimes security and privacy are more important than money. sometimes access to the that is more important. you have to evaluate and decide what the most important pieces are. >> who do you make these decisions with? >> that is not my role at the moment. when i was at the public utilities commission as cio, i made some of those decisions. thatstate cio's office -- is not my role to make those decisions. >> how do you determine if the

way you move some of these things over to the cloud is successful? how do you gauge that? >> the same way we would gauge any other type of implementation. what are you trying to get out of it? what is your success parameter? how close are you to those? it is no difference whether it is cloud or free or pay-for or anything else. >> that was carol lawson with the state of california. you will need more of these attendees over the next few months. if you want to watch this or other "the communicators programs, and on our web site at c-span.org. >> sunday, your questions for syndicated radio talk-show host bill bennett. the former education secretary and the first drug czar is the author of more than 20 books for adults and children. three hours with bill bennett

's" ay as part of "booktv holiday weekend. get the whole schedule at gov 2.0. -- at booktv.org. >> senator durbin asked about mandatory sentencing guidelines, the death penalty, and treatment of enemy combatants. republican senator tom coburn talks about the role of judges and the commerce clause. this is one hour. >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss kagan, welcome. you are probably aware of the fact that, about 12 years ago, then majority leader began a tradition -- bank goodness it became a tradition -- thank good became a tradition -- thank good is that it