on tuesday, republican presidential candidate and former massachusetts governor mitt romney will announce his jobs plan at a truck company and las vegas. his speech comes two days before president obama's address to a joint session of congress on his economic proposals. live coverage begins at 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> much more video of the candidates, see what political reporters are saying, and track the latest political contributions with steve and's website. it helps you navigate the political landscape with links to c-span media partners. this week on "the communicators

," to members of the european parliament talk about internet policy and your's approach to privacy and internet technology. >> this is "the communicators conchobar each week we look at telecommunications policy. we are pleased to be joined by two members of the european parliament to look at how the evil approach as telecommunications policy. let me introduce them to you. first we have marietje schaake. she represents the netherlands in the european parliament and it is a member of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe. we also have james elles. also joining us this kim hart of politico, one of our regulars. tell us why you are in town this

week, mr. elles? >> i and a number of my colleagues are here to engage with our american counterparts on a number of key issues which we think will be critical for our picture of how the trans- atlantic economy can be competitive in the feature of dealing with financial convergence, the debts and deficits problem on both sides of the atlantic, all these subjects where we hope by the end of the week to have a number of good ideas which we can deepen over the months ahead. >> marietje schaake, overall, how does the eu approach telecommunications policy with 27 member nations, and how is it different from how the u.s. approaches telecommunications policy, in your view? >> one of our main challenges is to make sure that you are a of

the digital market gets harmonized. both friends and critics of the e you think a harmonized market has brought us a lot of stability and help the economy overall, but online is not the same. the fragmentation of fight in your oppose the digital market is what distinguishes it from the u.s., where it is ashley one market. i think we need to overcome that fragmentation in europe to be competitive in the world and provide the best services for our consumers, citizens, and artists to share their creations, and to make the best of what europe has to offer in terms of online content as well. >> mr. elles, you are one of the founders of the european internet foundation as well. what is one of the biggest challenges facing telecommunications in europe, and what do you do differently than the u.s. does? >> i would like to tune in on

the same wavelength because where we might just simply put in the 19th century it is the railways, and the 20th century the airlines, the 21st century has the digital infrastructure that we need. asia is making huge strides. money is no object to get the high speed the broadbent for households. we do not have the leadership necessary to understand the real importance of having universal access of information at infrastructure to people across the land. i was at a conference at the woodrow wilson center yesterday were clearly there has been an estimate made about $500 billion. congress has authorized $7 billion so far. where is the rest of the money come from to make the rest of the digital infrastructure work? there is a reluctance of

government it because of debt problems to invest in infrastructure, but we definitely need these infrastructures to be really competitive in the global market. >> i wanted to jump right into what the netherlands is doing over the net neutrality fun. the country was the first to take net neutrality forward by banning mobile telephone operators from blocking certain services. tell us a little bit about how that law came into being in what it means going forward for the country and the eu at large. >> what we saw was actually a shareholders meeting where one of the board members of the largest telecom provider in the netherlands was bragging to shareholders that they were able to monitor the traffic of their users to identify whether voice over services would work in

order to make sure those services were not competing with their own business model of sending text messages and using cell phone service as we commonly know it. while that might have been a great argument to shareholders to protect a certain business model, users in the netherlands felt that potentially free of cost service was actually denied to them. in principle, the belief is that through transparency of -- telecom providers -- consumers have a choice to move, so competition could be a solution to keep the open internet neutral, to have net neutrality's sake guarded. it was soon discovered that competitors also use the same techniques to monitor traffic, and initially that is when the government had said we are just going to look whether civil

liberties have been violated. on the competition side, we don't see a need for action, and then the parliament actually stepped in and a majority of parliamentarians said there was a need to step in to guarantee that neutrality by locks did my political party initiated that motion, as we call it, and so now net neutrality is enshrined in law. what is going to do in europe is set off a domino effect where consumers will be curious, were free services are denied to them, where the traffic is monitored in a way that violates civil liberties and fundamental rights and freedoms. i think it will be the start of a bigger discussion in the eu policy circles for the digital agenda that james mentioned.

the commissioner has already started an investigation into the practices of net neutrality and she has said that depending on the outcome of that research, she will take action, but she is awaiting that for the moment. >> you mentioned the concept of competition and consumers being able to move to different competitor. what is competition like in this space in your country and in your? and consumers go to different service for writer and receive the same amount of service? cracks in theory, i would say there is competition. there are a number of players. kpn is the previously state-run telecom provider that has been privatized. the reason the regulator could

not step in is because it has a share of the market share. after digging% market share, they can step in. within hours we found out the competitors actually deployed the same practices. even though in theory there is that choice, in practice it makes no difference. that is very important when we look at net neutrality. the argument of transparency and competition is valid. i am very much against over regulating the internet, but sometimes regulation is necessary to keep the internet open. that is a very different objective to safeguard competition and peoples fundamental rights and freedom. keeping the internet open and competition help the i think is very much desirable, and the minister in the netherlands

literally said the telecom's had overstepped their space. they had pushed their love, and that is why this regulation was necessary. >> in the united kingdom we have a rather interesting emerging situation that is right on the top of the headlines about who owns the media and why that on it. it comes from one specific problem in one specific newspaper, a particular question about how this is going to be regulated in the future. i personally feel that the more freedom we have and the less domination of one particular individual or organization, we have a really good opportunity to sort this one out. the thing i would like to come back to is to build on my answer to the last question, on the fact that the internet is global, and we see a rise of real power in the east, in asia

and china is often part of debate creek what we are trying to look at this week is to see how we have a trans-atlantic agenda on dealing with some of these really important issues for the digital sector, like cloud computing. how can we have parameters based on freedom of the press and access all other countries are not quite so focused on this type of thing. harcourt -- it is in the interest of both europe and america, but sometimes these additional questions are too much on the european or the american side. the more we can get a trans- atlantic debate going that our interests are very much in common. we hope we can make a good focus not only on the transatlantic thing but about corp. and multilateral forums.

it is really important at this stage where the chinese may have a chance for their own internet network. how do you keep the multilateral system running? that will be a major question for us. >> as you are building on that idea, because the internet is this global network and the intermission growing on that is growing by the day, how do you make sure -- how do you handle the privacy issue? how do you ensure that people are using the internet as efficiently as they want to and trusting to use the internet by protecting what they are doing their? in the u.k., how do they approach privacy regulation? >> of european bases on protection of intellectual

property rights, in the thinking of some, if you have global systems, we need to have a transatlantic market. we have the principle of freedom of movement across the transatlantic. part of that would be proper coordination between the u.s. and eu on protecting international property rights of emerging technologies. if we can coordinate our positions on our approach to third countries -- china is a perfect example, then we can begin to make some real progress on these things. sometimes the changes so fast in the technological sector, where received from facebook and the way people place their trust and information on it, we are no longer sure what is going to happen to that information to private companies can basically do what they like with it. it is a central point to the protection of privacy and

information of individuals. sometimes in the political world, decisions have been taken -- picture has moved on it at a much faster pace. the more we can be aware of the picture than the more we can coordinate our positions together. >> how do you described the accord nation thus far between the u.s. and the eu on a lot of these internet governance issues? is there a lot of parity there on the things we have been talking about, or does their need to be a lot more discussion? >> the internet is global, and you have a real risk of dangerous carrying over into the next decade. we need a more intense -- if you are talking to an ambassador from the state department and

onto the list of issues, these are the same issues we are dealing with, but we don't have the framework to allow the right kind of people to talk with each other. the sooner we strengthen these frameworks, particularly in the political community, the better. >> i also think there are some differences between the eu and the u.s.. that does not have to be a problem. we can be complementary and in good alliance with each other, but each has their own role to play. the storing of financial transaction that of eu citizens are shipped in bulk to the united states to be monitored by a private entity. that raises questions about oversight. the other issue is that of fragmentation. james mentioned intellectual property rights. that is a very important topic, but also an area out that we

need reform in europe to benefit from the opportunities the digital environment brings to greater amounts of audiences and to use the benefits that the internet has without seeking not to take care of the creators. we have to rebalance that. in terms of balance, it plays out as a rule in the relation between the u.s. and the eve. the u.s. tends to have a strong emphasis on security. we saw this in the war on terror and we see it in discussions on cybersecurity. i believe is europe's role an obligation to balance the freedom argument. there is no such thing as 100% unsecured. we may strive to seek a responsible level of security, it is our obligation to protect the well-being and security of our citizens, but we also must ensure that such measures do not

actually strangle what makes the internet and new technologies such a great opportunity and such in cancers of freedom. the u.s. is very strong on the internet freedom in the international context. secretary clinton is focusing and investing a lot in the development of tools to circumvent censorship, filtering, blocking, and to help human rights defenders and basically people to creep -- to freely express themselves and gain access to information to document human rights abuses. this is wonderful, but the potential to limit those opportunities also lies in an over emphasis on security and allow for far reaching measures into people's private conversations and access to information. this balance is crucial. i do think the eu and the u.s. can complement each other and find that right balance and they

should definitely do that together. >> because of what is happening in the u.k. right now with the news of the world issue, the see a strengthening of security issues when it comes to telecommunications policy? >> perhaps not directly related to what is happening in the u.k., but in general. we sometimes are led to believe that the internet has changed everything, but the fundamental rights of people have not changed. there is a lot of discussion in the u.k. of whether there is more regulation needed now, whether a special body should be developed. i think the judges and the rule of law should first do its work. there is a natural tendency that we see all over the world to have a strong reaction when something goes wrong. the same happens in

cybersecurity discussions. we must also learn from the past. especially in the u.s., when we look back at the impact the war on terror had and the damage it has done when it comes to civil liberties and the protection of human rights, that is still not solved. that balance is very important in the government's and politicians have a responsibility to protect both. the difference is that a lot of decision makers have difficulty understanding to the full extent how these technologies impact our societies and the lives of our citizens. on top of that, the speed of development in the technological atmosphere are must faster than policy making. policy-making is running behind technological developments all the time. streaming is the new thing, and the next thing is already looking around a corner. i think we should work towards

framework policies that guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms, within which technologies can develop freely without us facing the need to adjust policy at each and every step, because it is simply not feasible. >> this is all part of a tremendous revolution we are living in. often people have quoted gutenberg and the press being something similar back in the 15th century, where people had the right to print and that gave the basis for democracy because you were able to use pieces of information to get people properly informed. what we have today is an extraordinary thing, having access to information at any time from your own machine, information that is doubling every day or every two hours. it becomes a question of how you prioritize information and how

you get access to information. the decision maker is dealing with e commerce across the european union, and you have to get it right. we work closely with the internet education foundation. we are doing something in town on thursday morning on privacy and intellectual property. the idea is not to make sudden decisions. what we try to do is get the right kind of experts from the telcom and software companies to get better information and better legislation. you have to guarantee the rights of the people so they can have

confidence in it. confidence is extremely important. >> our guests this week, both members of the european parliament. marietje schaake is from the netherlands and she represents a party called the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe. james elles, a member of the conservative party. >> you just mentioned 500 million people in the deal that you want to be connected to the internet. wireless is a big part of connecting these people in all parts of the world. what is the spectrum situation like in europe? that is a big topic of conversation here with the spectrum shortage and how are we going to maximize the use of the commercially available spectrum?

tell us about what that situation is like in europe. >> we just worked on a report in the european parliament's regarding spectrum policy in europe because it is hot topic for us. there will be a revision of the spectrum policy coming up. one of the issues that is necessary now is to do an assessment of where each member state of the stands. we have countries that are at a different economic levels that have developed spectrum policies in different ways. what is necessary is to assess the situation around spectrum in each member state according to the same thresholds. we must make sure that the new spectrum policies allow for the development of new technologies while safeguarding used by the military and certain cultural players. we are well on our way to

looking at it on a future prove basis and to make sure that he does act as one global player in dealing with spectrum. were there are now 27 different voices, different systems, we must go in the direction of the eu as a global player to be competitive and clear about where we stand and to make wise decisions. we also looked into the possibility of being a little more flexible with the use of spectrum. on the part of the military and police services, some spectrum is more like to reserve for emergency situations. some people use spectrum war during the day and others more in the evening. how can we be flexible and ensure that we use the capacity we have and that the people can have their fair share, and that we move along with the speed of technological developments. >> last friday, vodaphone -- you

can see the pattern of people's habits and it comes through their use in downloading or streaming information. what struck me here was that spectrum has stayed still wild technology has changed. mobil used to be used for voice and now they are used for video. videos overload the system and people cannot use it for voice. in my area, which is a very civilized area in britain, i live in a place where i do not have a mobile signal.

this is something that comes back to an earlier comment about digital infrastructure. it is really important for small businesses to be able to do this. if we invest 15 billion euros, about $12 billion, something of that kind of area comic-con if you did it for mobile and broadband, you could probably create a half million jobs. they are connected arbitrarily, depending on where they can get a signal. it is really important to get the spectrum right. making sure everybody gets coverage.

the internet allows you to be a consumer and have dominance over the information you get. it is bizarre -- it is like buying a car and not having a road. if you buy a mobile, you need to be able to use it wherever you are. >> following up on what you just said in terms of how -- whether private companies will combine with public money to be able to build this out. how do you incentivize private and wireless companies to invest in their networks to make sure that people are receiving what they need? >> my sense is that companies are prepared to do that if it is economically justifiable. the money goes around in a way that if it is going to generate business and allow people to

invest, that is what we have to realize. one of my local constituents said he cannot get broadband. he went to india and said people there are -- within three weeks he got broadband at three times the speed he could get it at home. this is one tiny example of the way in which businesses of any size, to be competitive in global systems, are being able to invest in a place where they can get the right kind of service and the infrastructure. >> marietje schaake, you recently commented that you don't have wifi in your office in brussels. >> i am afraid that our institutions are not always as open up and connected as they should be.

there is a lot of opportunity when it comes to open data and collaborative policy-making. as policy makers, we must drag our institutions into the 21st century to be more connected to citizens and to use the opportunities of interaction, connection, communication, and collaborative processes that these new medium's bring. we have a lot of work to do in our own houses as well, and that is relevant on a number of issues. we can only be credible in the rest of the world ever practice what we preach. >> what is your biggest frustration when it comes to telecommunications policy in the eu? >> i think it is to do with leadership. what we are seeing now with the body we have within the european commission, we want to be sure we get the right kind