five to seven minute documentary. the $100,000 in cash prizes will be shared between 150 students and 53 teachers. the grand prize will go to the best student or team. is january 20, 2017, so mark your calendars. for more information, go to studentcam.org. "the communicators" is next, with a look at tech issues this election cycle. that is followed by a debate between the candidates running for u.s. senate in alaska. later this evening, we will take you live to philadelphia, where a get out the vote event with hillary clinton and singer katy perry. c-span, where history unfolds

daily. was created as a public service by america's television companies, and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. this week on "the communicators," a look at some of the tech issues being discussed in campaign 2016, and a look at the tech policy agenda of a president clinton or president trump. joining us, jeffrey eisenach with the american enterprise institute, and craig aaron, president and ceo of free press. , what, in a sentence or two, would you describe as hillary clinton's tech agenda? on -- : based craig: based on what the campaign has said so far, and i

want to say i am not a supporter of hillary clinton, but the key elements that interest me most are her commitment to really expand broadband access with a lot of talk about competition and bringing the benefits of broadband to all americans, and i think there is another strong theme running along the idea of inclusive innovation, how do we make sure that the entire country actually shares in the benefits of the internet economy ? among the huge changes happening as a result, what do we do to make sure not many are left behind? peter: how would you describe donald trump's tech agenda? craig: mostly awol. i have seen very little written down. i was pleasantly surprised to see mr. trump come out strongly against the at&t time warner merger on day one with some very strong language about too much media power in too few hands.

i find it very interesting to see the candidates moving in , of criticizing that kind of media concentration. otherwise, with trump, you have to read between the lines. maybe my colleague can shed more light. things offn a lot of the cuff, some talk about shutting down the internet, not a lot of details. peter: jeff, same question. jeffrey: same disclaimer, i am not here representing the trump campaign or mr. trump in any way, and i have some criticisms and praise on that front. 's policiesr. trump are concerned, there are a lot objectives.als and i think we all want to see the benefits of the internet be made available to all. i think we want to see more rapid innovation. i think we want to see lower prices. i think what mr. trump is saying

is that the path to those objectives is less regulation, lower taxation, and so forth. inyou are a believer government as an instrument in achieving those goals, as many democrats are, then you are going to have a bullet point agenda as secretary clinton does. there is no question that her bullet point agenda is much longer and more extensive than trump's agenda is. the question is, will it be more effective? trump's people would argue that regulation and taxation is an across-the-board policy that would achieve results. peter: craig aaron also brought up the fact that donald trump has spoken out already against the proposed at&t-time warner merger. what did you think of that? jeffrey: we have seen a number of big mergers in recent years. we have seen comcast-nbc, which was approved. we then saw comcast try to take over time warner.

fcc'sf my reading of the review of that is that it is not obvious to me that this fcc would have approved the contest-nbc merger. -- comcast-nbc merger. they said we are not going to double down by letting comcast get even bigger. they did a lot -- they didn't allow at&t to purchase t-mobile. to purchaseow it directv. at this point, all of these mergers are going to be looked at very carefully. the notion that all republicans are complete us a fair when it z-faire whenlazzei it comes to can indications policy is inaccurate. farn't think trump is that off base or outside the frame to say, this is what we are going to take a close look at area -- look at. dig intore to help us

the specific issues of tech policy is a mere nasser of open of the morning consult -- of "the morning consult." amir: the issue of broadband in the past has brought republicans and democrats both together. secretary clinton says she wants to put households online by 2020. the gop platform talks about private-public partnerships to bring rural america online. from both your perspectives, is this an area where we can see consensus in the next administration, the next congress? that's a good question. i think at a baseline, the internet is now a necessity. i think there is growing agreement that while the internet may not quite be up there with water or electricity, they are kind of right alongside hot water in terms of people's needs and importance.

i would like to see that kind of agreement coming from both parties. one of the challenges would be who is willing to confront the problem? when i look at the changing nature of the digital divide, there are some areas that still don't have access, and we need to address those, but the biggest area seems to be price. it costs too much. that requires more competition, is one proven way to bring down prices. there are other ways you can look at it, but ultimately i think that's what is keeping most books off-line. it's not that they don't want it, it's not that they don't need it, it's that they simply can't afford it. we are all in favor of

expanding people getting online, but we have different views in terms of what that means. measuring still internet penetration as people who have a wireline connection, and the question is, do the other 20% of people want or need a wired internet connection as opposed to 4g or 5g smartphones? my 4g smartphone is often as fast as my internet connection. the question is, how are we going to define internet penetration in? another question is, how are we going to define competition? for the most part, democrats have taken the position that more competition can be defined as having more competitors, so they have advanced the model where you take the people that have invested in recent structure -- invested in infrastructure, and you need to sell that to people who will compete against you, and we will define those as competitors, and there is more competition because we have created resellers who will resell the product at a lower price.

oxford.is in school at i mention that because i am in broadband consumer in the united kingdom, which is sort of a poster child for pursuing those kinds of policies. wireless connectivity in the united kingdom is very dismal. the effect of those policies as to discourage investment, and the brits are suffering terribly from that, and they know it, so toy have a five-year plan roll out connectivity and more fiber, and so far it has not been very successful. it seems like more folks have started to borrow those good old policies, and from the consumer end, clearly there is a market that is being served in the wireless market through some of those products being able to that hasferent things created even more penetration

and a lot more availability. that is missing on the wired side. i guess i have yet to see a better answer than politician means more competitors. we certainly seemed to need more, and with something as important as that internet annection, this really is monopoly. that would suggest a different set of policies. i think the question is how you think about competition in the internet ecosystem. if you think about other aspects, we have one dominant search engine, google. we have one dominant shopping site, amazon. we have one dominant social network, facebook. no one is saying we need a government facebook commission amazonvernment commission or a government google commission to break those companies opt or force them to resell their services. i guess you dies tried a i guessit of that -- you guys tried a little bit of that with the neutrality issue.

these guys are competing with one another with dynamic business strategies. comcast, charter, at&t, verizon, t-mobile, and lot of that is a competitors in a market like this, all competing vigorously with one another. one we might talk about his t-mobile's zero rating plan, which is very popular with consumers, not so popular with some liberal public interest advocates. that is the kind of innovation that current levels of competition are creating, and i think in a very healthy way. amir: one thing this brings up his open internet issues. secretary clinton came out in strong support of the net .eutrality rules of last year in curious, i know that congress, they have discussed wanting to rewrite the

communications act with the internet age, and the neutrality rule somewhat undermines that. under a republican white house, if they manage to keep the majority, do you think there is a possibility of that resurfacing, the movement to rewrite the communications act? i certainly think there is a consensus. first of all, in the trump campaign, it seems to me, without going along the list of bulleted policy issues, has made ,lear that wasteful spending regulations will be reduced and cut back. in general, you've got a predilection towards smaller government. looking at the republican government -- republican platform and what republican thernors have tried to do, notion of a less intrusive fcc more focused on lessing rules and more focused on writing new

ones. less focused on writing new rules and more focused on enforcing existing ones, i think probably you would see support for them. craig: it's interesting to see having no policy details as a positive. a lot of us are asking for these details, because you have to wille which administration be making all these decisions, and i think it will be huge decisions. the power of these new gatekeepers, that's something we need to be looking at. it doesn't necessarily mean the same rules would apply as they would to wireline telecom carriers, but i think people all over the country are very over the power facebook, google, and amazon has, what they are doing with their information. those are important questions. but there are two gang differences.

one of those big differences is, no matter how big facebook might be in my life, i can make the choice to go away from facebook and get information elsewhere. that's harder to do when it comes to my internet service provider. i a lot of americans only have one choice for truly high-speed broadband, and that is important in their life. i think that requires a different set of answers. i hope the clinton administration thinks that in a lot of ways, what the fcc has done is a model. they stepped up to protect consumers. they have challenged some of the powerful industry lobbies in town. they have not gotten everything right. they have not played the politics perfectly every time, but if we look back over the course of what they have done, there is a lot to be proud of, and i hope the next administration is looking to build on that and not tear it down. peter: one of the questions on your nasser was going to ask nasri will ask is -- amir was going to ask is, who would

you look to see as gatekeepers? craig: it's so hard to get into the name game. i think people are probably asking us who do you think will get the nomination and how angry would you be if it was this person. i find it hard at this juncture to predict who it is going to be, primarily because i don't know who will get those really big jobs. often times what happens is come in and everybody thinks they should be commerce secretary or secretary of state. once those jobs are handed out, fcc chairman looks better. that are a of names lot of federal telecom insiders, and i think some of them are very qualified, and others possibly would not be my first choice, but yeah, a lot to be determined starting on november 9. peter: jeff eisenach, any names you want to offer? jeffrey: no. i will keep my shorter.

[laughter] peter: what have we been able to learn from the candidates when it comes to cyber security? speechmr. trump gave a on cyber and talked about the need to be more aggressive on that front, and if you look at the republican platform, it goes into more detail. , andnk he does understand this campaign has certainly brought up the importance of cyber security between secretary clinton's e-mails and the hacking of the dnc and so forth. the importance of cyber security, i think, is evident even to the candidates who otherwise might not pay attention. if you look at the republican platform, it is clear against -- clear in calling for a more aggressive posture against foreign attackers. it mirrors some work we put out this summer. calling for a more forward leaning approach that both looks at sources of cyber attacks,

attributes them, and, where appropriate, retaliates on countries that are engaged in a attacksenabling such -- or enabling such attacks by criminal groups. i wrote something for aei yesterday, we have not yet experienced a serious kinetic cyber attack in the united states. what we have experienced is sony, small ball, maybe. for a reallytial serious connecticut attack is there, if you take what happened on friday of last week, which was a very widespread attack. happening forat the financial system, or a different kind of attack attacking controlled systems at power plants or traffic at

airports. we do have the capacity to see those coming. we have very capable folks at the nsa. we have mostly had them sitting on the sidelines. the current world is before they can engage in any way, they have to go through a bureaucratic process that could take days or weeks. the opm attack at the nsa was off the playing field for more than a week during the of time that attack was going on, because they were negotiating bureaucratic understanding with the department of homeland security. think we will see a republican administration wanting to cut through the red tape and get our a team on the field defending america. say first of all that i don't purport to be a cyber security expert, but without question, anybody who is going to be in the white house next, obviously this is going to be very high on the list,

watching the attack last week. anybody sitting in that chair, this is going to be one of the big problems that needs to be solved. i will also share some overarching concerns which have to do with spying and surveillance and who is the nsa spending their time watching, and i think those are really big questions that the next president is going to have to tee off. i think there is a lot of work to do there as we look at what's worked and what happened in the patriot act and some of those authorizations coming up again, and a whole set of things to strike that balance between the protection we need on these networks and not just sweeping up millions of people who are completely innocent in a huge dragnet. think this is an area for potential partisanship, at least -- potential bipartisanship, at least looking back.

we had senator cory gardner and mark warner together on capitol hill, and they are now cochairing the senate federal cyber security caucus. i think the potential of reaching across party lines, everybody understands the threat and the urgency. many people understand the urgency of it. i think we could really see cooperation. another issue that will definitely have traction is encryption. it is extremely difficult for ,awmakers to forge a specific either, we need strong encryption, notwithstanding the to get law enforcement in some of these encrypted messaging applications, but i am. curious, the am republican party platform mentioned encryption, but did not release to rake -- did not release take out a strong

position one way or the other. clinton talks about a commission. i am curious if you think the opportunity for bipartisanship is there in the next administration. craig: this is an area where i would be critical of the clinton tech agenda. they punted on the issue of, hey, let's have a commission. i would certainly like them to move much more strongly toward really supporting and action -- supporting encryption. is really world, it important that we have these technologies wherein not be easy for the government or anybody else to break into our phones or devices. i would like to see a stronger position out of the new administration. i don't that's reflected in the agenda. i think that reflects the views of the candidates, who spent so much time in the state department and elsewhere, but i think this would be an area where the administration would get a lot of attention, really the whole suite of surveillance

issues, but also encryption, or they will need to hear from a lot of people. obama administration did, especially around apple and san bernardino. we have a commission on the way. they are working on trying to is an unsolvable problem. republicans and democrats are on different sides of this issue. instinctively, one says if you are apple and if you have the capacity to assist in a law enforcement investigation terrorist who has killed a lot of people, you want to find a way to do that as a patriotic act. drill moreyou can deeply into that, you realize that involves opening a pandora's box and kind of allowing everyone into everything, and putting american companies at a terrible

disadvantage in the trade environment. i think the weight of republican opinion is to be in the same place where craig and i both are, which is as much as you be able to have a secret key hiding in a safe at the fbi or someplace, if they've got it, it's likely somebody else is going to find it and they could have a slippery slope. another issue that has come up a lot during this election cycle is trade. important that free data flows internationally, and there is strong support from the tech industry for tpp. ,'m curious of the rhetoric both candidates now say they are against tpp. what does that mean for the tech industry? moving forward, how do you see the reaction? craig: politically, you are right to describe the positions

of the different candidates, and the clinton campaign saw pressure from the sanders campaign manager. given the opportunity to weigh in, i don't see how she goes the other direction. again, we are getting at the edges of my specific area of expertise, but both candidates really speak to the real anxiety that people across the country are feeling about trade, and really about the stuff hidden inside the trade deal. they can't see it, they are not sure what it is. to see thely feeling benefits in their communities of these deals. i think that is going to be one of the big challenges of whoever is in the white house, what are you doing to speak to all those folks, to speak to these anxieties about fundamental changes that are very real in everyone's lives, and how do we get the benefits of silicon valley, of the internet economy to actually reach the most americans? justot just happen -- not

if you happen to be a phd from stanford or whoever. jeffrey: a couple of things. i agree with almost everything trade said in terms of -- craig said in terms of the impact of and our current trade policies on what we used to call the rust belt in america has been very damaging, and certainly people in those states received that, and both of the candidates were responding. perspective in thinking about the candidates and the outcomes, i think it is very important to put the candidates in the context of their parties. with secretary clinton, we see someone who, according to wiki, was reluctant to embrace that neutrality regulation, took a more free market approach. but i think that is consistent with the position she's had over

the years. the party isssure, forced to move in the other direction. the same with tpp. with a trump administration, you contextualize a potential president trump within the context of the republican party. both parties are split on trade, but historically the republican party has been the more pro-free trade party. that may be a nonpolitical thing to say in today's environment, but i think that is more in the republican genes. the other thing worth pointing out, china is a real challenge to the united states on trade. one of our scholars who has covered trade for nearly 30 , an economist who is a true believer, and he has come out and said that we are

continuing to turn the other digitalwards chinese mercantilism and intellectual property, and that is not viable. will jump into say, for example, the net neutrality e-mail is ambivalent on the issue, but came out very strongly in support of net neutrality not long afterward. if what we are ending up with is ambivalent on some issues, but persuadable, i will take that and i think the outcome, if you look at the secretary's evolution on some of these things, which is in response to the public's views, that is a good outcome. if we see politicians from the top down moving to respond when they are hearing from secretary clinton is clearly hearing some things, evolving her positions -- that's a wonderful outcome. peter: if there were a president trump, with net neutrality be reversed? if there were a president trump, would multi-stakeholder in i can

-- icann be reversed? craig: candidate trump has said -- jeffrey: candidate trump has said clearly that he is opposed to net neutrality regulations. a president think trump would do and what hope he told not do is intervene instruct an independent regulatory agency how to issue a particular regulation. i don't think what president obama did a year ago in march was the right way to go about it. hisink in general, taking broader views on regulation into account, you would expect him to appoint to the fcc one who would be inclined to take a less regulatory position. mir,r: i'm your, 1 -- a

we have one minute left. last question. amir: what do you think the biggest policy goal will be in tech? affordable broadband. how do we make the internet more affordable and available to everyone? administration stepping in, making that a priority from day one, would be doing the right thing. at the end ofnk the day, both administrations, whoever is selected as president, will be forced to confront the chinese challenge to american supremacy online. 25-year-oldg off a first world advantage, a world in which apple, amazon, microsoft, google are the chinese -- are the players. what the chinese have -- but the chinese have a big ecosystem. they are innovating rapidly. i think we will be in a position where we are trying to put in place policies that will make it

possible for america's innovators to keep innovating in a global market. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] c-span, where history unfolds daily. , c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies, and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. clinton travels to philadelphia this evening for a get out the vote event that will also include a performance from singer katy perry. at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. and tomorrow, more road to the white house coverage. first, vice president biden campaigns for hillary