Provider. Host and representative joe barton, a republican of texas, is the chairman emeritus of the energy and commerce committee, he joins us on the communicators to talk about some of the Telecommunications Issues facing congress and the fcc. Congressman, if we could start with a couple of breaking issues in the last week or so. Number one, i want to get your thoughts on the comcast Time Warner Cable merger and whether or not congress will end up playing a role on that. Guest well, we really havent had a chance to study it much at the committee level. I think we will have a hearing on it. Im sure the chairmen will have a hearing. On the surface of it, i would think the congress would be generally receptive. We would want to look at any local issues where there was a market dominance, disproportionate share of concentration, but i think overall we would tend to be receptive. Host the other issue i wanted to ask you about, tom wheelers comments regarding the Net Neutrality ruling. Fcc chair wheeler said he would leave title ii on the table. Guest well, the fcc under president obama just doesnt get it. The courts have struck their Net Neutrality attempts down twice, and this latest proposal will be struck down again in court or by the congress. Its kind of a technical issue, but theyre going to try to regulate the internet through whats called section 706 of the Communications Act can gives and it, you know, its not, the internet as we know it today bears no resemblance to monopoly Telephone Service back in the 1930s and 40s and 50s, and what the courts have said and what the Congress Supports is if i walk in to a Grocery Store and i buy a gallon of milk, i pay 3. 50 a gallon. If i buy ten gallons, i pay 35 for all ten gallons. Tom wheelers fcc wants to say you can use as much milk as you want and you only have to pay 3. 50. Thats just wrong. Netflix is the biggest user of the internet as people download their movies, sometimes theyre as much as to 30 of the total volume of the internet. Obviously, netflix should pay more than somebody who uses the internet more than once a month. Im being simplistic, but thats the genesis. And these companies have spent billions and billions of dollars to set up their systems and to provide the fiber optics and all the megaspeeds that we just take for granted. At some level they should be allowed to charge based on volume. Host well, joining our conversation is brendan sasso, Technology Correspondent for national journal. Thanks, peter. Congressman, you were mentioning how the fccs rules are based on section 706 of the teleCommunications Act, and that says the agency has the power to promote broadband. The law was passed in 1996 when you were in Congress Guest subcommittee and full committee and on the conference committee. When congress wrote that provision, do did you see it as empowering the fcc to adopt internet regulations . [laughter] guest there really wasnt an internet as we know it today when we passed the telco act in 1996. The big fight was between legacy Telephone Service and what we now call the wireless market. And we fought over that, and there was, there were fights in between the broadcasters and the Cable Companies and, but there wasnt any fight over internet because in spite of what Vice President gore has said, there was not an internet as we know it today. So, no, there was no, there was not even any debate about the concept of Net Neutrality or any of that, and, you know, we have an internet thats working today, its provided probably billions of people access to information around the world not just here in the United States, but overseas. Its probably one of the biggest platforms for freedom that the world has ever known. And as its grown though, companies have been innovative this providing services, and some of those Services Cover a lot of broadband. And what the courts have ruled is that at some point in time a company can charge based on volume metric use. Theyre not going to begin to charge the local homeowner, the local small businessman i dont think any differently than they are today, but these big megausers, broadband hogs so to speak, might have to change their billing practices because they may have to pay more if theyre using as much of the broadband capability capacity as we have right now. Chairman waldenen has said its walden has said its time to revisit the teleCommunications Act. What are you looking for in that process . Are there any lessons that you have from 96 . What do you think the big issues are going to be on that . Guest well, i just had a conversation with chairman walden very recently about that very issue, and he thinks it is time. He intends to do a number of oversight hearings and kind of factfinding hearings the rest of this congress, and he based on that expects to put together a bill in the next congress and move forward. Of course, on the democratic side of the committee mr. Markey of massachusetts who at one time was subcommittee chairman of telco is now in the u. S. Senate, mr. Waxman of californias announced hes retiring, mr. Dingell of michigan has announced hes retiring, so youve got three members who have been very active in telco policy, each of them for at least 40 years, and in dingells case 60 years, and they wont be on committee. So youve got a whole i wont say a new generation, but Frank Pallone of new jersey and and anna eshoo of california, green of texas, these are all very seasoned members who have theyre not junior by any means, but they havent served and been in the positions as the guys that i just mentioned who are retiring. So, you know, it is time to look at the telco act. In 96 republicans had taken the majority for the first time in 40 years. Tom bliley was the new chairman, jack fields of texas was the new subcommittee chairman. I think mr. Markey was Ranking Member on the subcommittee, many dingell was the Ranking Member on the full committee. And then, you know, we were trying to be leading edge at that time. But if you go back to 1996, there really wasnt an internet. Cell phones were these bag phones that were very expensive, very few people had. It was in a totally different environment. And now i have two, i have a congressional blackberry and a campaign iphone plus a wireless beeper i use up here. Ive got High Definition television sets. You name it, my 8yearold son has a laptop computer and a tablet. A whole different ball game. And the way we use what we now call the internet, the way we use wireless communications, they all need to be brought up to speed, and if we can get any bipartisanship at all in the next congress, i think youll see us do that. Host what kind of time frame are you looking . Guest im chairman emeritus, this is the chairman fred upton, greg walden, im a spear carrier. But i hope to be, i plan to be very involved. I would hope that with the right environment we could do a bill in the next congress. And in this congress mr. Walden and mr. Upton have both told me personally and theyve said pluckily theyre going to be publicly theyre going to be lots of hearings to set the groundwork to do it. Host brendan sasso. Another issue youve been involved in a lot is online gambling. Sheldon edelson has come out against allowing the federal framework for online gambling, he said hes going to do whatever it takes to stop that. Does that worry you . Guest we need to clarify what im for. Im for internet poker, and pokers a game of skill. If the best poker player in the world would take all of our money, he or she [laughter] in a reasonable amount of time because heir theyre just better. You may be a super poker player, i dont know. [laughter] you may be one of these whiz kids who plays poker on the internet all the time already. But i am not for online gambling. I am for internet poker if the states want to allow their citizens to play poker on the internet. Its a states rights, you know, position for me. Having said that, mr. Edelson has come out against it, and hes got every right to do that. As a citizen of the United States of america. But i think hes wrong. Respectfully, i think hes wrong. Because there are millions of people that play poker on the internet for money right now every day, and a lot of those people are in the United States, but theyre playing either within a state that allows it nevada allows it, and i think new jersey now allows it and in the very near future four or five other states are going to allow it, and theyre playing at sites that are not located in the United States. Theyre offshore. And so it is going to happen. It is happening. And i would hope that at some point in time mr. Edelson accepts the reality, you know, just as the tides come in and the tides go out and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, adults with free choice in the United States and around the world are going to play poker for money on the internet, and his company is in one of the best positions to offer those services and to make sure the games are honest and fair. And so him and his op to decision, while i know its sincere, is not going to succeed in the end, and it would be a lot better having him tell us the best way to do it than in an effort to stop it. Host representative barton, why not then open to it up beyond poker to blackjack or slots, etc. Guest well, because poker is skill. I mean, i played very lowlevel and some would say low quality poker, but i usually break even and win a little money, but i dont play in the big money games or the big tournaments. But it is a game of skill. So i dont have a, an intellectual problem or a moral problem saying we should allow it to be played over the internet. Im not opposed to people that want to, you know, do roulette or some of the other things, but those arent skill games. Now, there are betting schemes and, you know, various theories about how to minimize the house advantage, but when you play poker, youre not playing against the house. Youre playing against other people at the table. And over time the best people with the most skill will play. Will win. The best hand doesnt always win in poker because somebody whos got more skill may beat you with a worse hand by bluffing you out of the pot and things like that. You know, you dont have that in some of the other gambling games. You bet red, you bet black, you bet on the 7, you bet on the 2 to come the hard way. Thats all chance. Poker is not there is some chance and luck in poker, but theres also a lot of skill. Host wanted to ask you about the cell phone unlocking bill that passed the house this week. There was a last minute kerfuffle. What was that about . Guest ooh. I think a lot of members just didnt understand the issue. And, you know, members, rightfully so, tend to be scuttish if they skit itch if they dont really understand whats going on, and i think thats all it was. Host do you see that passing the senate and getting signed by guest i never predict whats going to happen in the senate. You know . [laughter] dont get me started on the United States senate. But the house tends to be proactive regardless of political affiliation, whos in charge. If something needs to be done, the house gets out there and does it. Oftentimes the senate seems not too aware of whats going on and tends to be less willing to be activist. So i cant predict whats going to happen in the senate. An issue youve been involved in for a long time is Online Privacy issues. The white house two years ago came out with this Online Privacy bill of rights, and not much has happened since then. Do you think that they should be more involved in this issue. Guest well, i would welcome their involvement. Thats an oddity for a republican to say, he wants the Obama White House to be involved. [laughter] but im the cochairman in the house with the Online Privacy caucus. Diana degette is my democratic cochairwoman and before that ed markey of massachusetts whos now in the senate. And we have introduced an Online Privacy protection bill for children, the do not track kids bill. Im hopeful that well get it to move in this congress. And i cant honestly give you a straightforward answer as to why some of these privacy issues have not moved forward. I will tell you with the problems theyve had on the obamacare web site, problems with the irs, the problems with National Security administration, there are all kinds of privacy issues that have made the front pages, and i think more and more the average voter is going to demand that we move on privacy whether its a generic Privacy Protection bill of rights like the white house has released or more specific bill like mr. Markey and i have introduced to protect childrens privacy, you know, it is time to do that. And to their credit, i think the Republican Leadership in the house, you know, speaker boehner, majority leader cantor, the chairman of the various chairmen of the various committees, mike rogers who chairs the intelligence committee, they sense that, and theyre beginning to put packages together. Hopefully, youll see on the floor sometime this summer. Host go ahead, brendan. On some of the issues youre opposed to more government regulation. Whats, you know, whats different about Online Privacy where youd be having a situation where the government would be telling google or facebook how they can handle your information . Guest well, i would turn that question around a little bit. I dont consider the government protecting your individual rights to be intrusive. I think google and facebook are intrusive when they capture information without your permission and use it in ways that you might not approve of if you knew how they were using it. So i think that an individual has rights, i think if the constitution were passed today, the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure would include a specific right to privacy. And i think the only reason you didnt have it back in the 1700s is you didnt have the technology, and it was automatically assumed that your privacy was yours, and people could not invade it. Physicals you opened the door unless you opened the door and let them in or gave them a letter or whatever it was. So this concept that it is the data collectors right, to me, is just flat wrong. It is my right if i choose to be a facebook, have a facebook address, a web site, i should be able to set the parameters on what facebook can collect and how they can use it. And right now its just the other way. And, of course, in banking, in all these other the web site, the government web site for health care, healthcare. Gov, numberly had an amazing initially had ap amazing disclaimer that wasnt public, but it was right in the fine print that you have no right to privaciment now, when i pointed that out, secretary sebelius, to her credit, said that was wrong, and she said that she would change it, and im told that she has changed it. So its time to have a fullthroated debate about privacy. But i start with the premise that it is, it is my right to privacy that is intrinsic to me as a United States citizen, and it is not some company or government entitys right to collect and disseminate and massage and store unless i explicitly say its okay or unless im reasonably suspected of some crime or terrorist act in which case the government with probable cause does have the right to go in and invade that to protect the public good. Host congressman barton, youre a longtime member of congress, prominent member of the enc committee. How prevalent, how big of a boot print do the Tech Companies have when it comes to lobbying . Guest how big a footprint . I would say modest. Most of the Bigger Companies have washington representatives, and they participate in the Political Fund raising and things like that. But the best lobbyist is not somebody you pay in washington. The best lobbyist is somebody who votes for or against you located in your district. You know, if youve got a plant, if youve got a Service Center and you, you know, so i think, again, on both sides of the aisle im a lot more responsive if, well, at t. At t is headquartered in downtown dallas. Thats not this my district, its about 20 miles from my district line, but the they invite me to come down to speak to some of their employees who work downtown but live in my district, thats much more effective and its not that their people many washington are not effective in washington are not effective, but the most effective is in your district, in your state. And, of course, in washington theres so many trade associations and company reps that they on any big issue the washington side of it tends to balance out because you hear both sides from the representatives that are here in washington. I want to ask another privacy question. You had sent a letter last year to google about google glass, these computerized glasses theyre coming out with, and youd raised these privacy concerns. Were you satisfied with their response . Is this still a concern . [laughter] guest well, google and i have an ongoing agree to disagree relationship. I certainly respect the technology that google glass represents. As an industrial engineer, it is amazing. But when i put my privacy hat on, the ability for that to invade someone elses privacy without knowledge is phenomenal. Now, you havent seen these, you know, these glasses show up much because theyre still kind of in the beta test market phase. But i did have about two weeks ago i participated in a seminar in one of the hotels here on capitol hill. And as i walked out, a man came up to me wearing a pair and wanted to interview me. Now, i knew what it was, you know, because i have seen em and kind of got to play around with them a little bit in my office. But he interviewed me, and he used his google glass apparatus as the, as a camera. And, you know, the average person on the street probably still wouldnt know what that was, and if he had gone up and engaged in a conversation with somebody, not told them what he was doing, they wouldnt have had a clue what was going on. So the Technology Side of it, i give them an a . The protect the individual privacy of the people who dont wear the glasses but are observed, recorded, videoed by them, i hi theres still a lot of work that needs to be done. Host your former colleague, susan molinari, is head of the google lobbying guest she is. A good friend of moon and her husband mine and her husband, bill paxson, but shes, you know, as shes supposed to do since shes paid by them, e she has to represent their company and their product in the best possible light. And i have respect for that, but my job as a Public Servant and as the privacy caucus cochairman is to point out some of the potential pitfalls of the uses that technology could result in. Host is there agreement amongst midwest of congress about the immediate for amongst most of congress about the need for guest i think theres general agreement that we need stronger Privacy Protection. I dont think theres agreement on what that is. But conceptually, just the generic is there a needs for more Privacy Protection, i think both sides of the aisle would say yes to that. And on the republican side, its much more apparent now than it ever has been. It comes up in our retreats when were just brainstorming what are the issues. Two or three years ago, certainly five or six years ago privacy wouldnt have made the top ten, and now its one of the first things people spontaneously talk about. Host so did Edward Snowden start a needed conversation in this country . Guest well, im not a bug fan the of his, but in a back door kind of way, i think the answer to that question would be, yes. Host brent can sasso. One of the issues thats in your barrel is this eraser button that would allow children to delete things they put online. California passed a law a couple years ago to do that, and it gets into effect next year, and because of the Global Nature of the internet, everybody will have to comply with californias law. Does that take away some of the need for federal legislation . Guest no. It just i would say just the reverse. It shows that whats in our bill can be enacted, condition implemented. That was one of the more controversial items we put in the bill in the last congressment a lot of Technology Companies had questions about could it be dope, how would you do it done, how would you do it, what the liability was. And so in our bill that weve introduced in this congress, weve gone to some length to revise the language so that, you know, making explicitly clear that the requirement is to erase it from your, be the page or the location that the company has responsibility for. In other words, if something is first posted on facebook on an individuals facebook page, when thats erased, facebook erases it from their page and erases it from their databank, but they cant guarantee that if somebody took that and put it on youtube and its gone viral that you can erase it from all ten million places it has gone to. So, you know, young people do things that later on they wish they hadnt have done and they say things and post pictures that they shouldnt have, you know, and so thats that eraser button is a way to we dont want to ruin somebodys life because when they were 13 or 14 they posted something that they shouldnt have, and it later on they realized that, and they cant, they cant erase it. There are days i wish that some of my votes 10 or 15 years ago i could erase. [laughter] in public life in congress, once youve voted, its there. But for a child or a teenager, it doesnt necessarily have to be a part of your permanent record. Host coming up march 5th, your privacy caucus is having the privacy commissioner from ontario. Guest we are. Host why . Guest well, shes the leading expert on privacy, and shes a very vivacious woman who speaks in a way that people listen, and so weve invited her to one of our privacy caucuses to hear her thoughts on what she calls privacy by design. Host does that, does canada do it differently than we do . Guest id say they put more emphasis on it than we do k. I dont know how much differently they do it, but it is, it is privacy is more protected in a legislative way in canada than it is in the United States. Host brendan sasso, time for one more question. The fccs spectrum auction is coming up in a year. Are there any concerns that you have about how theyre going to structure it or decisions that theyve made . What are you looking for in that . Guest well, thats something that chairman upton and chairman walden, subcommittee chairman walden are continuing to do oversight on. They obviously want there to be an auction. Its an unusual type of auction in that we, you have the reverse and then the forward portion, and it starts, i think, next year as you said in your question. But broadcasters that have spectrum that they wish to solen towerly give back voluntarily give back, they submit it, and then the fcc decides which of those, which of that spectrum theyre going to accept for auction. And then if they get enough in a specific market to reauction, then theyll have the forward auction. I think theres a real debate, a real concern how many broadcasters are going to relinquish spectrum. And so thats the first hurdle youll have to overcome. And then youve got to make a decision if you get enough of that, how you go through the forward portion. So its, its a fairly complicated scheme, and its, you know, an unusually long time frame. So, you know, conceptually republicans are for auctions, and were for volunteerism. How this is going to work out in practice is anybodys guess. Host does the federal government have excess spectrum, do you think, that they control that they can [laughter] put up for auction as well . Guest thats a good question. Answer is probably, yes, in the real world, but if you ask all the federal agencies, youd get back, oh, no, no, we dont have any. I mean, this is a little bit off subject, but when i was a white house fellow under president reagan many years ago in the early 80s, 1981 or 82, the reagan administrationing asked all the administration asked all the cabinet officers to see if they couldnt eliminate some of the Interagency Task forces that they were on. And so the secretary of energy asked me to do that project in the department of energy, and the department of energy was on, like, 133 task forces that either the secretary, the deputy secretary or an undersecretary had to participate in and had meetings at least once a month or once a week or whatever. So i sent around a questionnaire to all the assistant secretaries and said how many of these task forces do you think we could eliminate . And what do you think the answer was . [laughter] none. Even though some of them never went to em, some of them never met. When they, when push came to shove, and this was in the reagan administration, they didnt want to give it up because at some point in tomb in some future in time in some future there might be an Interagency Task force that helped department of energy. I think if we checked with the federal agencies, they would all tell us they not only