granting the waiver and a number of former federal prosecutor. to startot a time lowering our guards. senseaw is a common measure we need to keep us safe, and we house republicans will do can to make sure it is enforced in full. thank you. on c-span, the communicators is next. at 7:15, we'll take you live to for aouth, new hampshire, campaign rally with democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies, 35 years ago, you as a public service by your local cable or

provider. >> and this week on the look at some of the issues that will be faced by the tech community, congress and government in 2016. we have a roundtable of working reporters to talk with. cory bennet is with "the hill." there.rs cybersecurity kate tummarello works for politico and covers technology. beyoud is with bloomberg b.n.a. where she telecommunications. one of the biggest coming up are march.ctrum in >> march 29 is the official tokoff date for broadcasts relinquish some of their spectrum. they'll be looking to either go out of business or possibly into channel sharing agreements with their colleagues. and a few months after that, potentially, that will wrap up sidee'll see the wireless start.

we're looking at other potential bidders as well, such as comcast announced today that they might also be bidding for some of that broadcast spectrum. months of be several close attention on the f.c.c. and its auction. months.ou say several so most of 2016 we'll be talking orut the spectrum auctions looking at it? >> f.c.c. officials have said they're looking at the auction closing sometime in the third of this year. >> closing in the third quarter. kate tummarello, is there interest on the hill in the auctions? >> tons of interest. seen a lot of lawmakers kind of ramp up their activity in this area, just because all constituents want faster cell phone networks. so the house committee has looked at this somewhat and the committee,erce they're very interested in pushing the mobile now bill, really aggressively. he's been very eager to move that. delayed twice now in

markups. so hopefully he wants to move in few weeks. >> why the delay? >> i think there's been some concerns in the administration that the defense department doesn't want to give up all this spectrum that he's identified. looking at government spectrum? >> yes. upe the broadcasts give their stuff, it kind of moves on to the federal government and the defense department has a lot of it. they tend to be very quiet about what they do with it because of concerns.ecurity i think there's been a lot of push and pull and give and take between the telecom community the defense community to find a happy medium where people spectrum they need. >> lydia beyoud, how will these auctions change our lives as consumers? the think for consumers on broadcast side, the goal is that you won't notice much difference, technology after we did the t.v. transition.

that should hopefully be seamless. innovationpe for opportunity is on the wireless side with potentially new the wirelessn market or much faster video speeds. by 2020, a lot of companies are talking about bringing into existence the fifth generation networks that are really going to power the internet. the incentive auctions are critical sort of a platform for them to be able to do that. >> cory bennet, daytona kate mentioned -- kate tummarello mentioned national security. high-profile,f highly publicized security breaches. is there a solution that the federal government can come up with? is there a solution that the with?ss can come up >> it's a solution that comes in many pieces. constantlyrain you hear on capitol hill is no silver bullet. step in 2015.rst

backers of a major cybersecurity called theately 2015, thatecurity act of was signed into law just before the new year, late december. through as part of the budget bill, you know, the $1.15 trillion budget deal. and the idea behind that is that it is a first step in terms of people to understand more about the hacking threats that the country faces. of the bill, which, you know, the white house was on board, had broad bipartisan support. many industry groups were on board. toy said we want to be able share more information with the government and have the government share information with us. legal liability protections when we do that, the idea being if they are able to more quickly see the hacking threats out there, perhaps one company, say, home depot gets we could mitigate the fallout from that, because we could more quickly tap the solution toor a

that problem. we can also tell other companies to look out for that specific hack, where in the past companies have felt a little hindered from sharing that information because of legal concerns. so the idea that this will help. stop hacks,help however. proponents of the bill are very clear about this. to see datagoing breaches in 2016. come fromill going to foreign states such as china, such as iran, such as russia as these massive cybercrime syndicates that we're seeing. hope is this will help the -- pare down down the size of these breaches. privacy bille involved with it. from civil libertarians, there was this coalition on capitol hill that was very vocal that combined kind of, you know, the libertarians with the privacy-minded democrats. and, youcame together know -- we've already seen the

introduction on the house side. people are not only mad at the bill. their main problem is that it's going to lead to unfettered sharing of people's personal the governmenth and that information, because of the bill, automatic sharing provisions in the bill will be widely disseminated throughout the federal government, including intelligence agencies. given the snowden leaks, the ongoing distrust of the n.s.a., that's very concerning to privacy advocates. >> kate tummarello, it's an election year. happen?his going to >> i mean, it seems like, you know, people are already thatring for the slowdown comes with an election year. but i think there's still a lot andet done and lawmakers the f.c.c., they're not going to stop anytime soon. privacy is actually a big issue that comes up in the election. six orre's a list of seven bullet point teams that congress -- items that congress says they're going to get done before they adjourn for the

election. and surveillance is one of those things. already started talking about it. last year, congress passed the freedom act, which reformed the patriot act, which allowed them collect the controversial phone record data. next year, another provision is to do withat has online surveillance. congress is already starting the conversation about reforming law so it's less concerning to the digital privacy advocates cory mentioned. that's something they have to tackle in the next year, and they've already started. even though it will definitely slow down, especially things like privacy, which every voter knows about -- people care about privacy. these things will continue to be on the front burner. true.t's there's also a privacy debate going on at the f.c.c. with neutrality rules. while the f.c.c. has sort of been kicking this new rule theng down the line for past several months, perhaps in anticipation of a court ruling net neutrality case

argued back in december, are alreadyocates out asking the f.c.c. to provide a lot of issues related to what you were just talking about, with regard to notifying consumers when a data breach has also the thought is they want the f.c.c. to require isp's to obtain affirmative consent from consumers before and possibly share that data later on. be on thelikely to hill, particularly doing f.c.c. oversight hearings. there asto play out well. >> yes. it's interesting that you theioned the movement at f.c.c., because on data breach notification bills on the hill, like we're going to see a lot of movement. there are so many options, on both the senate side and house side. and there constitute seem to be -- doesn't seem to be much of a unifying support behind any of the offerings. we've only seen more bills come on this topic since then.

ostensibly, they want companies to be required to tell the government within a set time when they've had a breach. most of these bills set a minimum data security standard that are handling sensitive data. but i would imagine, and what i'm hearing from people i'm to, is that in an election year, no movement at all. >> especially with the fizzing already out the door. >> they expended a lot of getting thatital through. i think any bipartisan company -- it's probably been expended. >> lydia beyoud, you mentioned ruling.neutrality two things. number one, what is the privacy issue involved with net neutrality that you brought up? also, help us untangle how that's going to play out in 2016. >> well, the privacy issue with is how internet

service providers are collecting what they do with it. you'll see many isp's already why is it argument, okay for us to be regulated by the f.c.c. on this issue when other companies that also lot of data, like facebook or google, do similar with that? sort of the flip side of that is consumer groups say, well, you're not just controlling where people go but you're also controlling how they get there. going to beobably one of the key debates. there are a lot of policy say, youut there who know, isp's maybe don't have as you think they do, particularly as we move around from our mobile to our computer various devices, sort of the data might get chopped up a little bit. but the f.c.c. is going to be at all of those aspects and eventually coming out a proposed rule making that people will get to really get their teeth into later on. thend the larger issue of net neutrality, a potential

ruling, when would you expect a ruling by the court? >> most of the people i've spoken with are putting it at or around april april, i believe. yeah. so it could be earlier, could be bit later. but most people think that the court wants to be expeditious with the ruling. >> kate, what could change? isi think that the timeline really interesting, because we've seen a lot of activity in congress again on net neutrality. this is something we've seen for the last year, as long as this has been an issue. been interested. but recently the committee actually started moving on net neutrality bills. so they moved a bill from makes permanent an exception for small businesses, that wouldved a bill prohibit the f.c.c. from using a rateeutrality rule for regulation. these are all kind of, you know, small things that chip away at the order, but obviously, you the court strikes it

down or if the court holds it up up, that changes the game entirely for the legislative battle. then you still have one saying working on a bipartisan net neutrality bill. he's insistent that he's still doing it and they're getting close to a deal. upholds the rules, there's really no reason for democrats to come to the table on a deal. down theurt strikes deals, there's no reason for republicans to come to the table on a deal. so this will change a lot in of the dynamic on the hill regarding net neutrality. >> also, one to have key there as well is that the court might uphold only part for your cable companies, your wire line, maybeand providers but not wireless, so you could end up sort of with split regulations possibly and the have to go back and redo the rules and that could create tumult on the hill as well. >> when it comes to election 2016 and some of the issues you how is that going to play

out? >> what's interesting is you ofen't seen much discussion cybersecurity broadly. it seems to be an issue that into, are afraid to weigh potentially revealing a lack of knowledge. ben carson issued a cybersecurity policy paperwork that was dissected very critically by the tech community. what you have seen is encryption the forefront in the wake of the paris attacks, and both -- the terrorist attacks in both paris and san bernardino. cybersecurity is brought up constantly, as parts of a privacy discussion. earlier aboutg privacy. encryption is an issue that many feel very strongly about, in the private community, in the tech community, that we need unbreakable encryption in banking,protect online online shop og, those kind of everyday activities that people don't realize are

reliant on encryption. they say that any access to type ofon, any guaranteed a access to inkreptin inherent -- encryption introduces nefariousity, to hackers, foreign spies. obviously the pendulum has swung wake of these terrorist attacks. law enforcement and many of the republican presidential candidates as well as the democratic presidential candidates, we've seen a lot of of them infrom both the sense that they want law enforcement to have some type of to that data, whether it's when they're served with a court order or whether they're to buy a bill. from seen a lot of that the republican side. and on the democratic side, we've seen talk of, well, we them on ark with voluntary basis. we don't want to mandate a here but weck door

want to work with them. hopefully they can give us data voluntarily. the view from congress on this? >> well, i think one of the interesting things about the of howion debate is kind global the perspective is, because a lot of members will say we mandates, that apple give us access to currently which are encrypted. what if the terrorist groups can then just move to a russian based company, where there is no back door? of -- we'rest kind whack-a-mo at that point. we're just kind of beginning these conversations in earnest. i think this is the kind of thing -- it's not even like the administration has a cohesive this.ctive on this is definitely an interesting conversation. i think it's really just starting. >> what's interesting about that that you -- as you mentioned, the white house has not onessarily put its foot down

this. and we can expect the white house to do that, perhaps in the coming weeks. this is something they said, in they were going to issue an updated stance on encryption policy. the new year.nd the new year has come and gone. we're into february. it.ave not seen but it can be expected soon. a lot of people are looking to house to kind of lead the debate here, because congress, i don't think, is this.to go anywhere on there are perhaps multiple proposals, some for guaranteed for a national commission to discuss the issue. but really, i think everyone is looking to the white house to put their foot down and leave the discussion here. we could see that updated policy weeks.in the coming >> as you mentioned, there's a lot of debate at these higher levels, within the government itself, ongoing effort between the justice department, securities and exchange commission, state department, to do not only information sharing but also withes their counterparts abroad. so while the administration and work ons continue to

this, there's still quite a bit of action that's being done at level.ncy >> i think it's interesting, i mean, just, you know, kind of going off that, we've seen with safe harbor deal that was just -- or what are they calling it? a wonderful rebranding. we've seen that and we also have a lawyou know, even enforcement agreement between the e.u. and the u.s. to share about crimes, transatlantic, share that data. they are often contingent on the u.s. strengthening its own laws.y >> yeah. and the senate is going to have to vote on the judicial redress is this hugech condition of the new safe harbor deal, privacy shield. will be interesting to see if there's any last-minute objections or if europe ends up happy with the deal that congress turned out. it's definitely very much a transatlantic debate and there's a lot of speaking past each other, just because our systems are so different. fun to watch play

out. >> kate tummarello, we have 10 minutes left. topics thate other interest you and what you foresee in 2016? 2016 is going to be a very interesting year for internet governance. this been talking about plan for the u.s. government to step back from its oversight ale of the domain system for long time now. it certainly feels like that. and this is the year, i think, all come to a head. "i can" which currently does a of the domain roles is going propose its plans for increased accountability and this transition, in the coming weeks supposedly. going to be up to the u.s. government to facilitate that transition plan. congress has said in the past it doesn't want this happening. republicans and congress hate this plan. haven't even see it yet, but they don't like the idea of the transition in general. they have had funding limitations, for years now. know, this will be the

year that it matters. if they continue to put those limitations on, that could hurt the transition. more importantly, that could the internet governance works across the world. it kind of asserts that the u.s. bigger role than many other countries would like it to have. we'll see the proposal for the soon and then we'll see how lawmakers react. >> well, there was a delay put year, wasn't there? >> yeah. i think they've taken a lot theer to come up with transition proposal than they caught it would take. an unruelysometimes cast of -- unruly cast of characters. they say they're coming down to it. they've reached an agreement and they're going to propose it. if congress continues these funding limitations, it will be up to the administration to congress to get over that hurdle. >> there's a real reluctance in there?s, isn't >> there is. it's interesting because there was a huge breakthrough last and, where the energy

commerce department passed this bipartisan version of the dot-com act. it would give congress -- i tonk 30 legislative days review the plan. the house passed it. overwhelmingly. it got heldenate, up by senator ted cruz, as you all know is running for president. ironic, because that could end up costing congress any oversight. don't keep these funding limitations in place and if they act, then the dot-com the congress department can do kind of whatever it wants. cruz keeps -- if he's willing to move the bill now. president, becomes then all bets are off. >> things could change. >> lydia beyoud, another topic? now, the f.c.c. has kicked off a very controversial proceeding or it's about to at its nextonth, meeting, with the set top box market. tot is the box that you use navigate your table system. it's already a very fraught issue. they have talked about making it

so that other companies would be able to use existing technologies and hardware to make it easier to navigate, and your cablefrom channels to your netflix or hulu. been a coalition of companies from the pay t.v. dishtry, everything from to at&t and many others, who are opening it -- opposing it. but google, meanwhile, is really trying to push this as a good idea. been doing demonstrations for hill staff staff.o for f.c.c. and there's a little bit of he going on right now between why google already has ready, when, you know, actually this whole proceeding got kicked off last year a. year-longalmost a report that came out in 2015. now we're sort of seeing it all as the f.c.c. is

about to unveil what's really in the new proposed rule. >> well, michael powell was on this program a month or so ago. cable industry interest group or lobbying group. and he said they'd love to get rid of the boxes. >> they have said that, yes. the cable industry has said we can do almost all of this with that they don't necessarily need the boxes. on the other hand, i think the say that the set top boxes are a major revenue stream for cable providers. it's been estimated that the average consumer spends about multiple cable boxes in their homes. questionknow, it's a of, where is the market going? will the f.c.c. be able to do something that truly opens it up in a competitive way? and how will the different able to sort of the rules into something that benefits them and the average consumers as well? cable company, broadcast

companies, netflix, amazon, are they all regulated differently or unregulated? >> i think they would say they are. it sort of depends on which space you're talking about. market, cablele companies and satellite companies are subject to very different regulations, just between themselves. and then also with -- compared to edge providers. into things like google fiber, that is a cable company. so seems like there's a little bit of redrawing of how all companies aret regulated, as more and more combine. topic? bennet, another >> well, i think the u.s. and china, the cyberrelations two countries is going to continue to be interesting. it has fallen out of the lastines somewhat in the few months, following, in september, president obama and president xi agreed to corporateto end

hacking. the kind of hacking where a steals another company's intellectual property and then perhaps gives it to a domestic competitor. all analysts have said that the u.s. economy is losing hundreds of millions, billions of dollars every year, because of this type of hacking. and they struck a deal to end this type of cyberattack. yet howdon't know that's worked. the white house has said it doesn't necessarily have a show people, to prove whether china is or is not adhering to the deal. should see the white house in a couple of months come out with some indication of china has gone along with its promise. results of that could actually be very telling for the future of u.s.-china cyberrelations. right before that deal was struck, there were many reports, and the white house was pretty open about this, that they were planning to sanction china, sanction companies and forviduals within china

these type of cyberattacks. they've since come back and declined to do that. but most people imagine that they will eventually wield these will come fromt an infringement of this deal. i think it's going to be very watch as these countries meet every six months to kind of flesh out this deal, was very vague when it was initially announced. and how are we going to measure you're adhering to it? what are we going to do if you run afoul of this agreement? that's something we're going to see perhaps in the next three to six months, movement in that. could kind of speak to the entire future of u.s.-china cyberrelations, which many see as normalizing right now. but it has the potential to change course very quickly, of course. >> kate tummarello, i'm going to in my phrasing, i guess. tech-savvy are campaigns today? and how much technology is being election cycle?

>> i think compared to, you ago, very, very tech savvy. everyone talks about the obama as kind of revolutionizing the way campaigns deal with data. there's more and more information online about people's activity every day. it only makes sense that topaigns tap into that, figure out who they should be tapping to -- kind of on behalf of them. it's something that has definitely, you know, increased dramatically. tech savviness in general. 12 yearsy imagine what from now will look like, especially if we all have google campaignnd ask have ads scrolling by us 24/7. definitely very interesting to watch. >> also, if you look at something like facebook, in addition to proprietary soft election campaigns might have, facebook is a very powerful data collection.

allows campaigns to really drill down to a very granular just what persuasion of republican or democrat might you their how to best target message towards you. i think we've seen a lot of overall.ation but election campaigns are definitely often on the cutting edge of that. fact hasok in republicans and democrats working on staff to help the campaigns, don't they? >> i believe so. >> yes. it's interesting to see how facebook ande google have really gotten involved in debates this year. the last republican debate on fox, every single commercial break, they said, and if you google fax republican debate, you can be taken to a special google page that talks about the issues we've talked about. such a synthesis right now. somethingow, that's i'm sure we'll see a lot more of.

>> in the last three years, has there been an increase between tech companies and their presence in washington? >> absolutely. i think it's astronomical. the big, thel silicon valley players. they're setting new records quarter.ery and it's across all of the issues that we've talk about today. ha! interesting to see where that goes, because some may argue that there hasn't of winsily been a lot for these companies on capitol hill to this point. so they are increasing funding, but they haven't necessarily seen a commensurate result on capitol hill. other way,rgue the certainly consumer groups would do so. but that will definitely be to watch.interesting are they going to continue to increase this lobbying spending? >> yeah. definitely been interesting to kind of watch this industry grow up, in a sense, in washington. i think cory is right. there aren't these huge wins.

tech industry didn't get the patent bill they wanted. there's a lot of open things on docket -- >> the cybersecurity bill they to. largely opposed >> exactly. it's interesting to see. no, they don't have the track record i'm sure they wish they had. i think it's interesting how individual people within kind of playing a larger and larger role. cook from apple will come out meet with members or bill gates. that has a lot of benefits, i'm sure. it's cool to be seen with the c.e.o. of apple. but i think they're trying to figure out the best way to get need from washington. encryptionaps the debate we talked about, at the forefront, leading the fight for tech community, so that seed be a bellwether we'll in 2016. >> it's certainly become more sophisticated, also at the level and figuring out how to better tailor their messages to individual policy

and their staff and really working heavily on some of the issues that they're most about all across town. beyoud,oundtable, lydia of bloomberg b.n.a., kate tummarello of politico, and cory bennet of "the hill." >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and a publico you as service by your local cable or satellite provider. democratic pm candidate hillary is in new hampshire today. stops includes a "get out the vote" rally in portsmouth. we'll take you there live when that gets under way. until then, a look ahead to the new hampshire primary from this morning's washington journal. nd the breakfast crowd all morning here on "