position on net nutrality? the fcc will address this soon. >> we weighed in on the 2010-2011 cycle. we have engaged in this debate much more. we believe at the end of the day, the internet needs strong, enforceable, protective rules for the developers on the web. those need to include reasonable network management. they need to be effectively enforceable. >> is that, in fact, the status quo today? why yes. net neutrality is about protecting and preserving the internet status quo. if we don't develop stave guards in place we have lots of reasons to believe that won't be the world of the future. that it will fall to different

eventities for different providers for different applications for different sources. these safeguards, that you will they won't have a significant impact on the way the internet works today, it will not preserve the things we love about the internet going forward. >> you came up with a proposal that was kind of an alteration of the title 2 proposal that's been out there. what was that proposal? what kind of feedback did you get on that? >> we put together a position that we identified with the federal communications commission back in may. it was a petition focused solely on the authority question. last january the d.c. circuit overturned those rules. in that they indicated they understand the i.s.p.'s to be offering something to providers. we said let's take that, look at that, explore it, call that a

separate service and let's apply title 2 to that. so we broke out a separate service being provided to i.s.p.'s that they were not directly connected with. we looked at that and said, hey the f.c.c. could call that title 2 today, not have to be reclass fight and then build strong net neutrality rules. at the same time we supported reclassification to get title 2 net neutrality. our -- we wanted to make sure it wasn't strictly reclassification but to create more diversity. we felt we could keep it that way. congressman waxman came up with a proposal. we ended up being one of the

first out of the indicate which created -- out of the gate which created a diversity of options here. >> what kind of feedback did you get, as far as free press? >> we had some supporters and some that were concerned. prime narle on the ground they were concerned with this being overturned in court. our proposal hinged on interpretation of certain terms within title 2 offered to the public for a fee. each of these sort of comes out of that, places where we made a call that its f.c.c. can address this in a specific way. these are things that will ams be testing points. so some of our allies felt that our proposal was a bigger risk than reclassification in the sense of overthurning orders and dividing up services in the way we did. i respect their opinions, and i

have had many cofferingses with them about it. >> there are some opinions that the internet should remain unadulterated in making it a title 2 consideration. so if the f.c.c. moves forward, what do you think will be the result? >> i think there will be some change. the f.c.c. has the legal authority to set aside many of the existing statchtri requirements and regulatory questions as it applies title 2 to the world of broadband. this is not treated the same way as the telephone system. some of the things in the history of title 2 were tarriffs, rate regular laces won't be replied in practice. we're in a world today where investment analysts and others are looking at possible reclassification that the f.c.c. is talking about and net knew trament -- neutrality and saying you know what? that will not have that big of

an im-- impact. i'm of that opinion as well. >> what did you do at the state department? >> there are grants to support freedom of advancement through research, digital training and other ways and programs. there are provisions in the government that engage in similar funding. i was part of a team that helped manage those grants. one of the ways i used to describe my job, there was an article that said, the n.s.a. is trying to break free of the state department not supporting it." i was part of the state department supporting it. >> has the f.c.c. -- >> i would say it is making progress, but it is the top, top fight. internet security is in jeopardy

being attacked all around the world. you can look at the people dog doing mapping of this. internet freedom is not in a good place. i think it is in a good place in the us its but in many parts of the world, people are not free to say what they want to say on line. so i think we have a lot of work to do, but i think we're making progress. >> what about the issue of being less dominated by the u.s. and moving into a national market? >> i think many in the western world will fee feel this is a great movement. l in practice i think relatively well managed by a multistakeholder group. so in some saste sense there has been a lot of talk about "i can"

and the change of its legal relationship with the united states or some other legal entity. but a lot of this, to me, is a formalism. we are moveed moving to a world of good -- i can transition to that as well. >> there is a fear also that the internet will not be free. >> i think some of that fear comes from the countries where the internet is not free and comes from the worry about international proffsizz where -- and worry that some of these structured formal intergovernmental proffsizz will start to take more control over internet content and policies around internet content. in doing that, what that would do is take out of the equation the voice of internet users and technology companies that don't have the same ability to be part of the conversation. to some who support internet freedom, who support the open

internet, that would be a mistake. the internet is for all of us, by all of us, and used for all of us and we all have an opportunity and a responsibility to be part of that paurt -- part of the structure for that. that's the way to preserve it. >> your title of senior policy engineer. what does that mean? >> it is a deliberate title. i made up my tilet. it is a play on words. i said i have an engineering -- i'm an engineer but i have a policy background. mozilla does not have the same -- we need to pick and sthuse choose our opportunities to have a proportionate impact on policy. find areas like net neutrality where we can come up with a unique voice and really engineer policy, if you will, to make it

serve the open internet. >> what about the issue of privacy? >> absolutely. mozilla has been very interested in privacy for a very long time. we try to address this through our product design, advocascy work. across the board at mozilla we try to put policy as one of our values. whether it is things like the foreget feature that we have at fire fox where you can rewind some of the you've dunsu done as well as tracking protection where we're starting to explore. all of this building on industry trying to make "do not track" a practical reality and educate users as well. there is a gap to be closed. users understand how they are being tracked on the web, and we are going to continue tracking that. >> what percentage has the u.s.

spotchings -- >> i don't know that. i think it is on the order of 17% right now. there are some countries where it is a laverager percentage. germany is one of those. perhaps because privacy is an extremely important value there. in the last couple years running we have been the most trusted internet search provider on privacy. a lot of it is driven by our community. people who work in california, paris, taiwan, we have a community of thousands of people that contribute code to the fire fox web site. these people are located in active vibrant communities in india, the philippines, brazil many countries in europe and they help drive not just our product and how they are built but also helps drive awareness

of our brand around the world j what is your status in china? >> we have many users in china. we have lots of contribute tores from china. we have, as far as i know, we have a perfectly good relationship there. we have a default search provider in china. we are in a pretty good place. we don't have data in storage we collect on people around the world because it is not part of our business mold. some of the problems our contemporaries have run into in these countries we haven't run into yet. >> why are you here? >> there was a broad band panel here yet on net neutrality. great people. i have also been attending innovation policy talks. the fcc chairman are here tomorrow speaking, here to be part of the policy deproud

crowd. >> broad brand disrutchting? >> no, i didn't say that. those are two different topics. we should work on that, especially in fiber. >> i didn't mean to combine two of the talks. chris riley, thank you for being on "the communicators. " >> thank you very much. >> now joining us on "the communicators" in las vegas, hank hokquist. fiffers all, what is at&t previewing here at the show? >> well, a lot of at&t's activities around the show have to deal with an afpp -- app development. that is a big part of our

involvement here at the show. so when it comes to hacking and privacy and some of the security issues we've all been reading about, how much of at&t's focus is preventing that? >> well, at&t has a very sophisticated and experienced security office. we are, i would say, extremely knowledgible in and focused on security issues. at the same time we recognize that we don't have total control over that environment. so it is an interesting space in that no one network has an ability to on an end to end basis control security on the internet. it is a challenging space. >> let's take that to your job as vice president of federal regulatory issues. would you like to see congress enact some type of security legislation? if so, what would be the depsh

what would the focus of that be? >> i think there are people at at&t who are a lot more knowledgible about security issues than i am. i am focused on things the foremen communications communications are. by and large that crosses the gamut of the f.c.c., congress, and the agency. i guess i'm going to say, i'm not the right guy to ask that question to. >> that's fine. the f.c.c. will vote on net neutrality. wham would at&t like to -- what would at&t like to see them do? >> we have been working with the f.c.c. on net neutrality. this isn't the first time the f.c.c. has adopted net neutrality rules.

we have worked with others on what the substance of the rules should be in terms of promoting and protecting at the same time encouraging investment in infrastructure. the problem we have now is where the net neutrality has do not. it is really not focused on the substance. which again i think there has been a lot of concern around. it is focused on the fcc and what jurisdictional authority they have. our concern is they will undo pow -- potentialally a regulatory status that's been here for over a decade in how they classify and regulate the internet. i guess i would say on that, the f.c.c. is going to do what it's going to do, but really, what we've seen time and again is that the f.c.c. in this area has

tried to adopt rules. they have been afealed appealed. they have run into problems. that will could very well happen again. so congress steps in and clearly accomplishes authority for this area, i think we are kind of in a groundhog situation with net neutrality. >> so in your opinion have the agreement in place until now been zesssnfl >> i think the rules that the f.c.c. adopted in 2010, which i think at&t dinsu -- which at&t continues to adhere to, i believe there is certain certainly so parties can go scompout invest, but the innovateors at the edge of the many internet, the app

developers do not have any reason to be concerned. >> what happens if tight 28 becomes the rule of law? >> if the f.c.c. moves to classify internet services, common carrier services under title 2, i guess a couple things happen. one is it creates uncertainty. title 2 is a very complicated regulatory apparatus. there is a lot of talk about how the f.c.c. could put services on that are not appropriate for internet access and create a monopoly like phone access in the 1930's. i think it could lead to litigation. that will take time to unfold, as litigation always does, and i would go back to my point earlier hoping that it's the

legislative part of government that has to weigh in on what the appropriate structure is for the internet. as long as the f.c.c. continues to try to fit the round peg into the square hole we will continue to talk about net neutrality. >> at&t has a public policy blog which has a lot of information really on there. who do you write that for? do you write that for regulators? >> it depends on what the issue is. if you read our blog you will see some technical issues that are written for very sophisticated awed against. other times you will see pieces that are intended for a more general audience. we don't necessarily pitch our blog to any one audience.

it depends on the issue. i'm sure we always have in mind both journalists and policymakers, at least potentialally. >> one of the issues we have heard a lot about is the potential comcast time-warner merger, but we haven't heard a lot about the at&t-trect tv merger. what kind -- direct tv merger. what have you done on that in terms of the day-to-day management of the merger with the f.c. c. and we have made it -- do you still have one more stage of public comment currently -- i don't know if you're aware, but currently the f.c.c. has what they call a shock clock they use to evaluate mergers like this, and i think we are looking at

late march when that shock clock would come up. it could go beyond that, but at this time we are looking forward to the f.c.c. completing its evaluation of the acquisition by sometime toward the end of the first quarter and the beginning of the second quarter of thisier. -- this year. >> what's your message to consumers, consumer groups? what's the benefit of this merger? >> i think the bhifts are really freshmen does. these are companies that are in complementary businesses today. whether we are talking about wired or mobile broadbands these are products that increasingly consumers are buying and using together. so bringing together these complementary aspects will provide great service to

consumers. we filed a public interest statement with the f.c.c. we explained how the merger changes the economics of broad band. so because of the synnergies we enjoy through the acquisition and the ability to have better prices et cetera to have a proper video offer, we will be able to deploy broadband. that i think will have a direct benefit to consumers. consumers, interestingly, many of those locations are in rural areas where consumers have very limited broad band choices today or no broad band choices. so we are excited about the benefits that will bring to consumers in terms of extending broadband. >> has at&t taken a position on comcast-time-warner? >> no.

>> we often here legislation, regulation is stovepiped among wired providers wireless issues cable broadband. can there be an overarching legislative package to guide telecommunications? does it necessarily need to stay separate? >> one law to rule them all. i think eventually the article you describe is -- has legislation. you can see it in the et title of the legislation act. title 2 for carriers, title 3 for wireless providers. title 6 for cable providers. that model cannot last forever. you run into tricky situations. the f.c.c. is considering

whether or not certainly over the top video providers should be classified as multichanneled video programming distributors basically the equivalent of a cable company or an i.t.t. that has implications. it doesn't fit that well into statchtri language, and really -- wen eventually we'll have to say, you know what? because of convergence and the fact that all these systems are run over i.p. networks eventually we'll have to come up with a mooerman rational framework that deals with that convergence. i am never one to say that can be done quickly. to credit congress over the last year or so has issued a series of papers about potential ways to rewrite the communications act. i think we have gotten a lot of good input.

maybe some day eventually we'll deal with that. >> fred upton said he would like to see that rewrite happen. >> oh, yeah. >> do you think we'll see that happening in 2015? >> i think there is a lot of interest in that. you shouldn't bet on legislation happening at any point in time, but eventually, i think it will happen. >> at what point do you draw the line and say we're going to legislative from -- legislate from this point forward because the technology is really changing? >> i think that calls for what i would describe ss a more general approach to the legislation. whether i look at the 1990 communications act, which was the last huge update, it has exact detail this dealing with how things will be done. it all draws on what a few of

the telephone network looks like in 1996. those sections are continued relevant because they are specific to that innovation of technology and business model and regulation. but more general things that give guidance in terms of how to deal with such an issue, how to deal with things like net neutrality. i don't think you have to be as concerned they become outdated overnight. >> the big options have been put off until 2015. is at&t participating? >> actually there is a big auction going on now. >> i apologize, this is a broadcast. >> that's right. so the incentive option is a

very complicated thing. it has never been tried before. the f.c.c. is working, as far as i can tell, very diligently on it. but at the same time it is really complicated. so it probably won't happen. as you said, they delay td until 2016. so we are at least a couple years away at this point. but meanwhile, they have the awfc option, which is underway. the only thing we know about it is that it's produced much higher bidding than what they anticipated. >> were you surprised by the numbers? >> i guess you would say i wasn't tremendously surprised. but i think the numbers say two things that are temporary to what some people thought were the conventional wisdom. one was that the need for and therefore demand for spectrum

was not as great. we hear that often. people say there is no spectrum crisis. the vool value of what is being bid in that auction, in fact, there is a tremendous need for spectrum. then the other piece of conventional wisdom that i think is interesting to think about, you heard a lot about how a certain sector is more valuable thaven others, and it has to do with mili-frequency spectrum having give issues than higher frequency. in some ways that's true. this auction suggests this higher frequency spectrum gaining higher bids than the last time the f.c.c. auctioned off lower frequency spectrummed. which doesn't prove there are benefits to lower frequency

that does show you shouldn't write off frequency in slightly higher bands. that that, too can have great value. >> is there any speculation in the mobile market? >> i would say it is very hard to say. it is tremendously competitive. this is a market where typically consumers have at least four different providers they can prove from. the vast majority of americans have at least four, many have five providers, and it is very easy to switch carriers, to switch your service providers. there is constant upheval in terms of the plans available. you know, you see constant increases, for instance, in the buckets of data being sold.

i look at that and say it is hard for any objective person to question how hard that market is. >> hank holquist, vice president of at&t federal regulatory. >> the "communicators" is on location in las vegas for the consumer technology show, the largest trade show in the world. if you are interested in seeing more of our programming, go to c-span.org/communicators. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 25 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> on the next "washington journal" philip klein talks

about the affordable care act. al foe president richard trumka talks about the latest. as always you can follow us on twitter. >> this sunday on q&a, dr. francis jensen on the recent discoveries on the teenage brain. >> they don't have the ability to analyze the cause-and-effect of actions. they are not as readily acceptable. the connections can't be made as quickly for split-second decision-making.