in congress when it comes to telecommunications policy as well as legislator proposals that the democrats and republicans may take up in the 112 commerce. joining us are capitol hill staffers who have worked on communications policy. waltzman and greg rothschild. thank you for being with us. both of our guests are currently lawyers who practice telecommunications law. joining us is tony rom. i have a general question. if the republicans take over and/or thehe house senate, what do you think of the

policies that will pursue and where will they concentrate their efforts when it comes to telecommunications? >> the combination of legislative policy and oversight, i think they will be doing an inventory of what the fcc and mti a have been doing, what proceedings are outstanding and evaluating the direction that the commission has been going, as well as an tsa proceedings -- as well as ntia proceedings. i expect republicans to take a hard look at where things stand with the commission. the commission recently asked for additional comments on services and wireless. on the legislative side, you could see a legislative reaction to what the commission may do on broadband reclassification. i also expect a lot of activity on the spectrum front.

there has been a lot of talk about there being a spectrum crunch and about the need for additional spectrum for commercial mobile services as well as a need for congress to act to provide the fcc a set of options. i expect the republicans to be initiating that discussion at the beginning. >> if the democrats control one of the chambers or both -- there has been talk about revamping the toilet mac -- the telecommunications laws -- where you see them going? >> i hope they do control. that would mean henry waxman would still be the chairman of the telecommunications committee. he would make efforts to find compromise on broadband regulation. in an honorable way, he took on the issue during the past year against taw boston got consensus

among stakeholders. the republicans, for reasons that howard can talk about, decided that they did not want to move for at that time. but i think he did a yeoman's work in reaching compromise. he will be likely to push up for work. on the senate side, senator rockefeller has been very clear that he considers spectrum to be a priority. he has a proposal to allocate the and the block, which is a spectrum band that has long been sought by the specter community to build a network. i think it would have support from the community and the will look to push that. >> no matter what happens next week, there seems to be some consensus among stakeholders that there will be a lot of changes on the communications subcommittee in particular. there are members who seem to be vulnerable. others seem to be retiring. then there are those who have as prisons elsewhere, larger committees or subcommittees even outside of the energy umbrella.

you told us that he felt that the subcommittee was probably the least likely to be impacted by a change in the control of the house. with a new crop of republicans coming into the said committee, do you think that it keeps it current bipartisan flier or do you think there is more antagonism between the two parties over some of the issues you have just identified, like neutrality and broadband classification? >> going back more than a decade, when it was jack fields and ed markey and others. they have always had a history of bipartisanship. we worked on a number of issues together. there has always been an impetus in that the committee to find common ground and move toward in a bipartisan manner.

>> do you think this selection in particular, did you see that changing a ball with a new crop of gop candidates coming along? do think the subcommittee could be more polarized as these hot- button issues become the key things that the committee is considering? >> a subcommittee is hysterically not dealing with hot-button issues or polarizing type of issues like health care. when you look at spectrum issues, broadband deployment, even privacy, none of these issues really break down in a partisan manner. sure, there are different approaches, but there are not categorically different approaches like there are in other policy areas. >> i absolutely agree. historically, back to the touch and dingell bill or those that became the 1996 bill, after a

very partisan election, that committee is still working on a very bipartisan way. it brought about great regulation. it has largely broken down -- net neutrality has largely broken down into partisan lines. i would expect them to take very different viewpoints. >> i think that gets us into the natural segue that net new trolley, which is making headlines, -- and its neutrality, which is making headlines, it seemed that some republicans could have supported it, but ultimately did not, whether it was because of the time line or it was introduced so quickly or that the election was coming up. there is a shortage of reasons

on that. going forward, if the gop takes the house, does that compromise come back? do they work in a bipartisan manner on that or does the gop not broached the subject on the compromise? >> you have to look at the different approach and motivation for any type of broadband regulation legislation. a lot of the democrats believe that there's a threat to internet openness in the absence of that least fcc oversight if not congressional oversight. on the republican side, they do not believe that there is a threat to internet openness. they see a lack of problems happening out there and they do not see need for regulation or legislation. so the legislation -- so the motivation for legislation on the republican side is to stop the fcc to stop regulating broadband under title 2.

that approach colors the entire debate. the motivation for doing it will essentially be based upon whether or not the fcc will be moving forward or there's a real threat that it will move forward. >> where does that leave democrats? >> i believe it -- i agree with what he said. it depends on what the fcc does between the election and when congress comes back. if the chairman goes ahead and has an order reclassifying title ii, frankly, republican or democrat will work together to make sure that there is a legislative strategy to address broadbent regulation as opposed to what the fcc did. >> do you think that forces the fcc to speed up or slow down any movement on the reclassification

or the net neutrality front if the gop were to take a house? that is for both of you. >> you can make the argument both ways. the chairman of the fcc said he is deferring to congress and he wants congress to act. that makes sense. the telecommunications act was written for a single purpose network analog environment. obviously does not exist today. you have multi-purpose networks that are digital. the fcc is looking to address that after the recent court decision. if he does, then we will have reaction coming from congress. when you look at it from a democrat or republican side, many democrats do not support the fcc decision. you have more democrats writing to the sec saying not to move forward. -- to the fcc saying not to move forward.

>> legislating is not an easy thing. it is not a quick process. we can go on for a long time about how the communications that is outdated and needs to be updated, including and especially with respect to the internet space. is the fcc going to wait until january or february for congress to act or will it be patient and wait for congress to really create an appropriate framework for internet services? i do not think that it is just a question that the fcc will wait if congress will enact legislation and achieve consensus on both sides by january or february. and a lot of the public-interest groups are pushing the fcc to act as quickly as possible. i do not think republicans feel any for the haze of legislation because they do not see the threat of the internet out there. >> we have dealt with to might be leading the said committee

and they look for ways to constrain the fcc or redefined its role in the broadband space. >> to redefined -- >> in a more limited role, i suppose. >> to redefine it, it would have to be legislatively. they can be engaged in oversight and the ballot where the sec or what does -- what has the fcc done and what isn't planning on doing and putting together -- and what is it planning on doing in putting together an action plan there. but if there is not an immediate need for action, they will take him more deliberate fashion. >> is this a philosophical issue? hamas islamic down? >> part of it is philosophical. -- how does this breakdown?

>> part of it is philosophical. part of it is network management. should prioritization be possible? what sort of expectations, with respect to internet applications? but a lot of it comes down to deployment. that is a regional issue. i think a lot of issues are more concerned with what is the extent of deployment in my state, where the speed, the network sophistication, and they are more concerned about getting investment out there to have the best services possible. they are more concerned about that. what you saw with every house republican, 25% of the house democrats, too, saying, wait, f c c, look at your approach. they are more concerned with making sure that the private

sector deployment supports that than an imminent threat in the future. >> he is referring to this notion that members want to see the fcc help them get broadbent to their districts. they want fcc help them get broadband and deployment. you talk about reforming universal service and getting broadband a deeper into certain parts of america that do not have it today. democrats and republicans potentially look at their recent preoccupation with net neutrality and say, wait a second, that is not what we want you to do. we want you to focus on broad band. democrats, in opposing the fcc proposal, are saying, we want

you to get back to basics. >> is there a leader? >> there has always been a lot of communication going on between the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee and the house and the chairman of the fcc. he viewed it similarly, that the folks on the fcc should be paying attention to the committee. the people who hold the gavel and the people who sit next to them in the minority expect the fcc to be responsive to the wishes of the congress. >> i always felt on committee staff, as well as with senator brown, that there was good dialogue with the sec. it was always open, but the commissioners and the bureaus and coming up and doing briefings, both republican and

democrat-led, sometimes we like what they were doing and some times we did not. but i always felt that there was a healthy dialogue and the fcc always made themselves available. >> this is c-span's communicators program. we're talking about the upcoming elections. the next topic? >> as we just said, there has been a huge preoccupation with nectar neutrality -- with a net neutrality. what are -- one of the things that the fcc wanted was a fund that would help build up broadband to hard-to-reach areas. but a poll that came out not too

long ago said that lots of americans did not want the fcc to play that much of their role to expand broadband by itself. maybe there was some misunderstanding of the question or maybe voters here government and broadband expansion and then think of government controlling the internet or something like that. with a gop leadership in congress, what does the fcc do? what relationship develops there? >> one of the primary focuses in the next congress will be spectrum and getting more spectrum out there, spectrum being means to expand broadband and membership across the united states. the sec can only go so far now. there are a lot of other bands that would like to make available for commercial use that any congressional action before they can do so. i see that as a focal point. the fcc is talking to, have a

dialogue back-and-forth. congress acting to ensure that spectrum is made available. >> is it more supportive of rockefeller's proposal? and what about the use of the white spaces proposal? >> i think republicans have come down in different places on the white space proposal. and they have come down on different places on senator rockefeller's proposal. another example of the bipartisanship on communications issues is that waxman and barton had a bipartisan proposal for how to deal with the d block. it was different from the rockefeller proposal. i do not know that it will necessarily be embraced in the house on either side. >> to follow-up on that, on the d block in particular, that

small chunks of spectrum that could be given to public safety or to commercial carriers to do other work and leasing the spectrum off. how do you see that resolving itself? do you see republicans taking the path of the rockefeller didn't or working something similar to what waxman has given the support in our has -- path of rockefeller or working towards something similar to what waxman has given the support it now has. >> positive things have been said about the rockefeller proposal. there could be a bipartisan proposal coming out.

>> incentive options, that one component of the rockefeller bill that would voluntarily give up spectrum that broadcasters give up, it isn't universally supported? i have not heard anybody on either side saying it is a bad thing. do you think that is one of the things that wins the day no matter what happens? >> i think the concept is -- there are a lot of the tells you have to work out in terms of how much money -- to the existing licensees get compensated to cease business? do they get compensated to be relocated to a different band? there are a lot of issues involved in how you do the mechanics. but in general, using auction proceeds, the spectrum below three gigahertz is ideal for commercial mobile services. the spectrum below one gigahertz is even better because you have better propagation characteristics and you have to build your towers. there is interest in making more

spectrum below one gigahertz for commercial mobile use. if you have to displace existing licensees, there are some wrenching decisions that have to be made about how you compensate them and whether they will be in business in a different band. i do not think it is clear at all were members will come down on any of those sorts of issues. but i think there's a real impetus to address that issue. >> you always have to start with the premise that nothing in this policy arena is ever universally supported. the notion of incentive options as a top line as a support in the broadcast committee and has support of the wireless community. but there are a lot of questions. howard raise some of the important ones, very quickly see fishers starting to develop between the parties or among the industry's very quickly. it will be interesting to see how that plays out. >> the issue of privacy, online privacy, has gone a lot of press attention in the last six months

or so. how do you see that playing out? >> that is always the wild card. i would reserve that. and every congress, when it has begun, the chairman has said that this is the year that we will pass privacy legislation. and each year, we spend time on it and bills are introduced. what typically folks recognizes that this is a very complicated ecosystem. there are ad networks, publishers, content providers, internet service providers. what has grown up business ecosystem where consumers benefit from a lot of internet content that is made available for free. the reason that is is that it is supported by advertising and that advertising is becoming more feasible because of the content of that advertising.

when members of congress start to delve in answer to write rules, they realized quickly that they will affect that internet ecosystem and they will affect the consumer spirits in ways that the consumers may not like. .ow that issue gets resolved - >> but the issue of privacy has ramp up in the last six months or so. >> absolutely. as people do more and more on line, not to communicate, but social networks, purchase products, as more and more of your information is there online, is more valuable to advertisers. that, for better or for worse, is the engine that drives the internet ecosystem. most applications for most what sets are free. they are free because they are advertisement driven.

the war between people wanting to protect and keep confidential a lot of that information about what they're doing online vs sustaining the economic model of the internet is a very tough one to do. it is every day. every day -- "the wall street journal" series is a good example. there is a lot of noise about customer -- not even customer, but people participating on social networks having their information, including personal identifiable reformation, being passed on to third parties and sold to advertisers. >> you said that at the top of that figuring out the right balance is necessary. does that make the committee take more of a weight-and-stick approach? -- a wait-and-see approach?

>> certainly, the issue will be the high profile in the next congress. members will begin to debate and be educated from witnesses on what the best approach is. i do not know that they will necessarily begin with where the current legislative drafts are. but the issue will continue to be important and there will be a community to be focused on if there will be a federal comprehensive framework on the online space. what should it be? >> we just saw the new white house put together an interagency task force on this issue. we expected the german to release his report very soon. that will in -- we expect the chairman to release his report very soon.

i think congress will get together in january to look at all that. they will certainly be hearing -- there will certainly be legislation introduced. the question is when that legislation starts to move. do the members of comfortable voting on that? do they comfortably understand the ramifications of it? the most difficult thing for moving in a communications bill is that voters like to vote on things that have a lot of substance. but because of the intricacies in the internet ecosystem, it will take a while to get the members ready to move on that situation. >> comcast, facebook, intel, just to name a few large american companies, who do they want to be in charge, the democrats are the republicans? >> i think you'd have to ask

them. >> i would agree with howard. you have to ask them. >> i guess that does get us into a little bit of talk about what is happening with the said committee and full committee leadership. do you see there being a drastic change? walden was once on the committee and give up his spot. do you think -- i know that you cannot speak to the individual, but do you think those candidates representing different views on some of the issues we have talked about? or do you see them all being in similar camps, so much so that it is safe to say that, no matter which one of the antics of the subcommittee, we will see a slightly different role for the subcommittee -- no matter which one of them takes up the subcommittee, we will see a slightly different role for the subcommittee? >> they will be focused on

broadband reclassification and spectrum. given the thoughts on privacy, it is tough to see that there will not be focused on privacy. finally, the committee parties, whether republicans or democrats are in charge, -- the committee priorities, whether republicans or democrats are in charge, those are the hot button issues. those are likely to be the priorities moving forward. >> what should we expect to see on that front in terms of a telecom law rewrite? >> he had not been recently talking about concern about regulation and engaging in oversight. i think we will see a lot of

the recite, both at the fcc, of the detox program, everything within that jurisdiction. upton and barton creek dissipated in the last attempt -- upton and barton participated in the last attempt. he has done his feet wet with respect to a broad rewrite of the communications act. again, that is not an easy task. it is not equipped task. but that is something that he does have familiarity with. .- it is not a quick task but that is something that he does have familiarity with. >> as you both know, he spent the past few months of the last congress -- actually, the present congress trying to gain

consensus around the broadbent situation. maintaining the chairmanship, he will continue negotiations, working with republicans on the committee, working with the industry, and working with focus in the democrat and republican party to give a clear direction on broadband regulation. on the senate side, senator rockefeller has been following that issue very closely and was involved in the state holding meetings on the subject. he seems more targeted -- in the stakeholder meetings on the subject. he seems more targeted on having a public safety network built as quickly as possible and using funding from auction's to support the building of those networks. >> we will leave it there. and thank you. these of the lead counsel for the telecommunications committee. howard wells men and greg rothschild. thank you for being on "the communicators. communicators.