That being said, the administration is threatened to implement a lot of their legislation to by executive order which gives them negotiating leverage and we have reports that president obama issued a secret address some of the collaboration between the administration and the private sector. Regardless we will see more action on Cyber Security in the first half. Legislation seems to be a difficult proposition. Go back to that secret directive, will that become public or reviewed by congress . It is difficult to say. It is not something that is reported quite a bit. But it addresses one of the most controversial aspects of the Cyber Security regime. Whether that is legal under current law because there is rules against sharing information with the government. So, again, there is little known about that but we do know that the government is insist ant that there needs to be some kind of rules to change to enable some of rules that are in place to do so under the law. Bendan sasso is with the hill encovers technology with the publication. Lets say neutrality. The d. C. Circuit is considering the challenge to the f. C. C. s rules. It is unclear how the court is going to rule but there are implications that the d. C. Circuit is September Cal of the f. C. C. s authority. If they strike down rules then they could enact a law but i dont see the republicans going for it. Then were back to square one. Do you see that coming to congress at some point or do you see the court making a decision . The court is going to make a decision and that could come early this year. If they uphold the rules then that is going to be safe and that is going to be the standard now. If they strike them down, it will be whether congress will try to act to give the f. C. C. Authority in this area. As long as the republicans control the house i dont see it happening. If they do strike down the rules that is broader because it puts the f. C. C. s power to regulates the internet into question. That is the core of the issue here. Not just the neutrality buddha that caps or on other issues, does the f. C. C. Have the power to regulate the Communication Service or are they going to be sort of an outdated agency like they are regulating telegraphs and everyone else moved on. Eliza krigman is from politico. I will agree with bendan. If you look at the big picture can which has to do with regulating the internet which is the most important platform in communications right now. I think the conventional wisdom is that the court is likely to strike it down. Even the supporters are uncomfortable with the fact that the commission did not use what is known as title two authority under the Communications Act to craft those regulations. They went with something under title one, they thought it was weak under the law. They are very nervous about it. Nobody has a crystal ball and knows what will happen so i think it is likely that question will go back to congress and that is unlikely that republicans will go for it. But will democrats make a big push . Another issue to consider will google provide the same rule as corporate rabbi if you will. If you recall several years ago they came up with a deal with verzon. A lot has changes for that Company Since that time and now, they have a more diverse portfolio. I think it will interesting to see who comes to the stage to make a play for that neutrality if the Court Strikes down the rule. Speaking of issues that have been around for a while, there are is talk of rewriting the cable act, rewriting the telecom act from the 1990s. There is a lot of talk and there is a lot of talk for about a decade. Im not personally convinced there is going to be any kind of major rewrite. One of the great champions for it has stepped down throwing a lot of questions into the arena about who is going to champion these issues and how in the next congress . I dont see an immediate overwhelming appetite to dig in and do all of the tremendous work there would be for a rewrite. I dont think there is consensus on the hill that a whole rewrite is a way to go. I think some members are more inclined to deal with specific issues and think it is too difficult at this point. You have to remember that law came from a 1934 communications law. Is it worth digging into the past . I think that is the question, who is going to be in the leadership spot, likely have a senator and it is not confirmed yet but senator roger wicker is likely to become the Ranking Member of the communication and internet panel. All of those things have yet to be solidified. I think there is a big question mark hanging over that but it is unlikely to see a huge rewrite. I think the broader question is that were in a period of great disruption in communications services. It hasnt shaken out yet. Things like netflix, apple, itunes store have changed the way we consume content. It is not yet clear how consumers prefer to get their content when all the available options are there. You run the risk that your legislation will become obsolete. I think lawmakers are astute about the fact that legislation tends to lag behind technology and they may give it more time to shake out before they try to set the boundaries which will restrain innovation in some fashion. Bendan sasso, another issue . The google antitrust case, we have been saying that the chairman has been saying for a long time that well get it done by the end of the year and it is not done yet. It has dragged into this year. It looked like the federal trade commission would walk away without taking aggressive action against google which is search bias. Whether that google prefers their own search enjins and if that vy lates the law. Then the European Commission which was investigating google looked like they were going take more of an aggressive action. But then the panel thought if google has to play ball with europe then they are kind of upset they are left out of the negotiations and pushing them to be more aggressive. It has dragged into this year. It looks like, for a while, the trade commission was going to take aggressionive action now they are not then it seemed like the wisdom and now it looks like they will get some kind of concession out of google. I agree that is going to be a big issue. I think another big issue is going to be implementing the incentive option to create more of a spectrum so the f. C. C. Has its sleeves rolled up and working on that. Some of the hot button issues on that is, unlicensed spectrum that powers wifi and other devices that they are coming up with all the time. There is a real rift between the republican lawmakers and the f. C. C. Over the appropriate way to create this unlicensed spectrum. Lawmakers are worried they are going to create too much at the expense of money that could be brought to help the reduce the deficit and build up the National Public safety network. The f. C. C. Says their proposed plan is good and there is going to be enough money for both. Another big issue is whether or not a. T. T. Or verzon can be able to gobble up all of that that comes to auction. Well look at that closely to see how the f. C. C. Looks at the policy to allow smaller players a piece of the action. On the topic of the anti google lawsuit that is the most watched because that is going to set the term for the second term on how the Obama Administration will be. We have yet to know what kind of tone theyville been adressive, they blocked the at, and t merger. Google antitrust suit without risk should shape the landscape of the internet. If google is not allowed to do business as it does, it would change the understanding of the Search Market as it currently stands. Google doesnt see themselves that way. They are offering consumers a service that they want. Once the government starts defining markets on the internet then they become, again, isolated and there will be rules to them and it will put barriers on them. It will have an impact if they take some sort of action. What we saw, i think, was a sophisticated lobbying by google, an outreach on both sides of the aisle had an impact on howing legislators the looked at the question. They seem to be achieving less than the european counterparts. There is a lot of left in the air. As for the incentive auctions i think eliza hit on the two big points. Weve seen that the wireless market has changed since the Justice Department blocked the tmobile and at t merger. They have a lot of respect from at mnts t from the merger failing. They are Building Networks that were not previously on the table so they are competing and they have an impact on cost, they offer lower costs. Then sprint is being offered by a wealthy japanese firm. It wont be done in time . We dont know exactly. The incentive auction is supposed to take place in 2014. That might be tight but these things usually take longer. Clear water is a japanese company, it is large and they dont have any interest in any other wireless firm. I have not heard major concerns. The Chinese Company that attempted to be the u. S. Market. I you would would say that at t has been raising some concerns. It seems like they are still bitter because splints waged an allout war against at t. If at t can cause headaches for sprint or whether a Foreign Company is going to gain control then im sure they will take that exunts to cause those headaches. Tmobile is owned by a european company. I want to add about the spectrum. The other big issue is f congress will push to free up the companies that are held by the federal agents. The Wireless Companies are saying it is not going to be enough, we still need more. A lot of the spectrum is used by the Defense Department and other federal users. Obviously, they are not in any hurry to give that up unless Congress Forces them to move and how expensive that will be will be taken up in congress. We did see recently the house chairman of the defense committee, i believe come out and make a public remark about working with the Defense Department to clear it up. I think that was note worthy because previous it has been an issue and i think it is a sign that they are making more of a comprehensive push to pressure the Defense Department to find some air waves they can relickish to the private sector. I think spectrum reallocation to the private sector will be a priority. The bill in december would have had about 450 spectrum im not sure about that it would have freed it up. He has shown that is a priority for him. The Wireless Companies are probably correct that their appetite for spectrum will not be slated by this upcoming auction. It will be like 500 megahertz. So government is coming up with some sort of new plan weve heard them talk about sharing spectrum between the Wireless Companies in some fashion. Well probably see more discussion of that. Bs, Eliza Krigman mentioned some new leadership in the senate but in the 113th congress who are the new leaders in the house we should keep an eye on . I think a lot of people, smith is moving to the Science Committee which has less power. So bob of virgina is going to be the new chair . Of the jureb committee. Judiecry. Do you see hip pa policy proposal coming forward again . I dont think there is an appetite for the same fight over again. Whether if there is some effort of copyright rules online, i think is it a possibility but i think a lot of lawmakers were frightened by how the fight went and the backlash to that. I think the movie industry and the Recording Industry is looking for smaller issues they can push. Now, litery is taking over for cliff sterns, correct on the energy and Commerce Committee . No, he is taking over the position on the commerce manufacturing and trade committee. Marsha blackburn is going to be the fice chair of the full energy committee. It will be interesting to see how and whether she tries to assert her authority in her new role. She told me she is interesting in tackling something that is related to piracy but it is unlikely. I think a broader more important part of the discussion is that it goes with the revolt. All members of congress are extremely warry of trying to enact law with technology they perhaps dont have an extra piece on and they dont understand all of the ramifications. I think that will be an issue. I hear again and again from a member nobody is interested having a repeat of that. Gautham nagesh what about the federal changes of communication . That is the big question really. Weve seen the commission at full strength with the confirmation of the democrat and everyone is waiting to see what the chairman chooses to do. There was speculation that he would leave office during the end of the president s term having served a full term himself. But those plans have been placed on hold. It looks like he may stay for some time. I think it is fair to say that his legacy is uncertain at that point. It has passed but many of its allies have either abandoned the commission in some fashion or arguing they did not go far enough in the rules that they implements and though rules are on shaky ground. The betting odds are they will not stand up to the challenge to the same court that through out its previous rules. Reclassification is another option. I would not be surprised if they were struck down but regardless, i think the chairman what he chooses to do and if he leaves and who the president chooses to appoint would define the president s legacy. I think reclassification would be a huge political fight. The issue is whether that neutrality is a small issue compared to the power of the f. C. C. If the f. C. C. Reclassifies what they consider the internet they would have the power to regulate it that the way old Telephone Companies were. The f. C. C. Wouldville more power and lawmakers would freak out if they tried to do that. They saw the docket open they have not closed it and the democrats usually Say Something like, we are still considering it and we have not made a decision and the republicans would like to make a decision not reclals fie it. I agree with that assessment. Yes, republicans in particular would go ballistic if they did that but if they feel that is their best option they would go for it. Another issue i think will be big in the next congress is the Internet Radio fairness act. That is a bill aimed at creating parady between web castors like pandora and the rest of the radio outlets. They pay a higher rate and in a few years in 2014, independent royalty board will go through a process of deviesing the rates again. They are in a huge battle with the Recording Industry to try to push this legislation forward. They have interestingly have republicans and democrats champions of this measure in the house. But were at the beginning phase. They did hold a hearing during the lameduck session and it will be interesting to see when her members get involved. Bendan sasso, senator rockefeller introduced violent video game review. I can see his bill passing. He introduced a bill that was requiring the study of the effect of violence and video games and tv, eastern media. I can see that gets fast tracked through. Whether there is any action on it is less likely. Any action would stand up in the court is less likely. The Supreme Court had a decision in 2011 where they struck down californias requirement that minors under 18 couldnt buy certain violent video games. That was considered to be the most likely to be able to stand up in the courts and that was struck down as a vlings violation of free speech. With that i dont know what congress could do in terms of regulation of vy lens in the violence in the media. While privacy will continue to be the largest issue for most internet companies, i think congress doing anything on the topic is very small. Weve seen the federal trade commission take the lead in privacy issues and they have worked on childrens privacy issues. Regardless, privacy legislation is too far for this congress because of the outcry it would create from Companies Like google. We will see the Obama Administration keep imply eventing privacy policies. The companies will have to keep to their word on privacy. As weve seen with Companies Like facebook and ins that gram when they change their word there is a lot of people using them and they pick up on these changes we see a public backlash. Then we so the exeans have to buckle and backtrack on some of these exangs. That has moved much quicker than any regulation could. Eng it is going to be i think it is going to be status quo. Were going to see the market correct itself because i dont think washington moves quick enough to respond some of these concerns. Do not track there has been this talk advertising to the white house and they talked about coming to the table and work this out and that did not happen. Lawmakers said last year were going to give the industry to try this on the own. Now it seems that failed there could be an effort to create an option that people could opt out of tracking online. Eliza krigman . I agree with that. In general, this is an area that is difficult to legislate. There is so much concern about it. A lot of members feel that the best thing they can do is keep the pressure on industry and continue to make it a high profile issue so that companies have to be on guard about this and push really hard for transparency measures. Steps to that is you dont have to sign an eight page dense agreement. It is easy for one to understand about the information that is collected about them and where it is going. Unfortunately, were out of time. Eliza krigman collects information for politico. Bendan sasso is a Technology Reporter with the hill newspaper. Thank you all for being here. Thank you. Thanks for having us. Tomorrow on washington journal well talk about the 113th keen