Of the issues that will be faced by the Tech Community, congress and the federal government in 2016. We have a round table of working reporters to talk with. Corey bennett is with the hill, he covers cybersecurity there. Kate tummarello works for politico and covers technology, and lydia beyoud is with bloomberg bna. Lydia, one of the big issues coming up are the spectrum auctions in march. What can we expect . Guest march 29th is the official kickoff date for broadcasters to relinquish some of their spectrum. Theyll be looking to either go out of business or possibly enter into channelsharing agreements with their colleagues, and a few months after that potentially thatll wrap up, and well see the wireless bidder side start, and were looking at other potential bidders as well such as comcast announced today they might also be bidding for some of that broadcast spectrum. So itll be several months of close attention on the fcc and its auction. Host and you say several months, so most of 2016 well be talking about the spectrum auctions or looking at it . Guest fcc officials have said theyre looking at the auction closing sometime in the Third Quarter this year. Host closing in the Third Quarter. Kate tummarello, is there interest on the hill in the auctions . Guest tons of interest. Auctions and in spectrum in general. Youve seen a lot of lawmakers ramp up their activity in this area because all their constituents want faster cell phone networks. So the House Commerce Committee and the senate Commerce Committee with senator john thune is interested in pushing his bill. And, you know, hes been very eager to move that. Its been delayed twice now in markup, so hopefully he wants to move in the next few weeks. Host why the delay . Guest i think theres been some concern in the administration that the Defense Department doesnt want to give up all the host so hes looking at government spectrum. Guest yeah. Theyre the big holder of spectrum once the broadcasters give up their stuff, and the Defense Department has a lot of it, and they tend to be very quiet about what they do with it because of National Security concerns. I think theres been a lot of push and pull and give and take between the telecom and the defense communities to find the happy medium where people can get the spectrum they need without sacrificing capabilities. Host lydia beyoud, how will the spectrum auctions change our lives as consumers . Guest i think for consumers on the broadcast side, the goal is that you wont notice much different. Technology developments after we did the digital tv transition have made it such that that should be fairly seamless. The real hope for innovation opportunity is on the wireless side with potentially maybe some new competitors in the wireless market or, just as kate mentioned, much faster video speeds. By 2020 a lot of Telecom Companies are talking about bringing into existence the fifth generation, 5g networks that are really going to power the internet of things, and the incentive auctions are viewed as sort of a critical platform for getting them in the pipeline to be able to do that. Host cory bennett, Kate Tummarello mentioned National Security. 2015 we saw a lot of highly publicized, high profile security breaches. Is there a solution that the federal government can come up with . Is there a solution that the congress can come up with . Guest its a solution that comes in many pieces. The one refrain you constantly hear on capitol hill and from the white house is no silver bullet. They took a first step in 20 saw. Backers 2015. Backers of the cybersecurity act of 2015, most people know it as the cybersecurity information sharing act, but that was signed into law late december passed through as part of the omnibus budget bill, the 1. 5 trillion budget bill. And the idea behind that is it is a first step in allowing people to understand more about the hacking threats that the country faces. Backers of the bill which, you know, the white house was onboard, had broad bipartisan support. Many Industry Groups were onboard. They said we want to be able to share more information with the government and have the government share more information with us. The idea being if they are able to more quickly see the hacking threats that are out there, perhaps one company say home depot gets hacked as they have in the past, we could mitigate the fallout because we could more quickly tap the government for a solution to that problem. We can also tell other companies to look out for that specific hack. Whereas in the past Companies Feel theyve been hindered from sharing that information because of legal concerns. So the idea is that this will help. It will not help stop hacks, however. Even proponents of the bill are very clear about. Were still going to see data breaches in 20 16, theyre still probably going to be massive, theyre still going to come from foreign states such as china, iran, russia and as well as these massive cyber crime syndicates that were seeing. The hope is this will help, perhaps, pare down the size of those breaches. Host is there a privacy issue involved with this . Guest theres a huge privacy issue involved with it. This bill in particular garnered much opposition from the Digital Privacy advocates, from civil libertarians. There was this coalition on capitol hill that was very vocal that combined the farright libertarians with the prielsminded democrats and came together and, you know, weve already seen the introduction on the house side of a bill to repeal the cybersecurity act. People are not only mad at the bill, they say this information sharing, their main problem is that its going to lead to unfettered sharing of peoples personal information with the government, and that information because of the bill, automatic sharing provisions in the bill, will be widely disseminated throughout the federal government including intelligence agencies. And gwen the snowden leak given the snowden leaks, thats very concerning to privacy advocates. Host Kate Tummarello, its an election year. Any of this going to happen . Guest i mean, it seems like people are already preparing for the slowdown that comes with an election year, but i think theres still a lot to get done, and lawmakers and the fcc, theyre not going to stop anytime soon. Privacy is actually a big issue, i think, that comes up in the election. But theres a list of six or seven bullet point items that Congress Says theyre going to get done this year before they kind of adjourn for the election, and surveillance reform is one of those things theyve already started talking about it. Last year the Congress Passed the usa freedom act, specifically the provision that allowed them to collect the really controversial phone record data. Next year another provisions expiring that has to do with online surveillance, and congress is already starting the conversations about reforming that law so its less controversial. So thats something that, you know, they have to tackle, you know, in the next year, and theyve already started. So i dont think even though it will definitely slow down, some of these issues especially like privacy which every voter knows about, these things will continue to be on the front burner. Guest and thats true. Theres also a privacy debate going on at the fcc regarding the Net Neutrality rules, and while the fcc has been kicking this new rule make down the line for the next several months perhaps in anticipation of a court ruling on the Net Neutrality case argued back in december, consumer advocates are already out asking the fcc to provide a lot of issues related to what you were just talking about, cory, with regard to notifying consumers when a data breach has occurred and also the thought is they want the fcc to require isps to obtain affirmative consent from consumers before they gather and possibly share that data later on. So thats likely to be one of thing big fights at the fcc and on the hill particularly during oversight hearings. So a lot to play out there as well. Guest yeah. Its interesting that you mentioned the movement at the fcc, because on the hill it doesnt seem like were going to see a lot of movement on data breach on the hill. There are so many options on both the house and senate sides, and there doesnt seem to be much unifying support behind any one of the offerings. They had trouble trying to move one last year in particular, and weve only seen more bills come out on this topic since then. And, you know, ostensibly they Want Companies to be required to tell the government within a set period of time when theyve had a breach, and most of these bills would also set a minimum Data Security standard for companies that are handling Sensitive Data around the country. But i would imagine and what im hearing from people im talking to is that in an election year, no movement at all. Guest especially with sisa already out the door. Guest exactly. They expended a lot of Political Capital getting that through, and i think any bipartisan comity between privacy dems and republicans has probably been expended in the battle that we saw. Host lydia beyoud, you mentioned the Net Neutrality ruling. Two things. Number one, what is the privacy issue involved that you brought up . But also help us untangle how thats going to play out in 2016. Guest well, the privacy issue with Net Neutrality is how Internet Service providers are collecting user data and what they do with it. And theres, youll see many isps already making the argument that why is it okay for us to be regulated by the fcc on this issue when other companies that also collect a lot of data like facebook or google do similar things with that, sort of the flipside of that is consumer groups say, well, youre not controlling where people go, but youre also controlling how they get there. Thats probably going to be one of the key debates. There are a lot of policy experts out there who say, you know, isps maybe dont have as much data as you think they do, particularly as we move around from our mobile to our computer to other wireless devices, you know, sort of the data might get chopped up a little bit. But the fcc is going to be looking at all of those aspects and eventually coming out with a notice of proposed rulemaking that people will get to really get their teeth into later on. Host and the larger issue of the Net Neutrality potential ruling, when would you expect a ruling by the court . Guest most of the people ive spoken with are butting putting it at the end of april or around april, i believe. It could be earlier, it could be a little later, but most people think the court wants to be expeditious where the ruling. Host kate, what could change . Guest depending on how they rule a lot, i think, you know, the timeline is really interesting because youve seen a lot of activity in congress again on Net Neutrality. This is something that weve seen as long as this has been an issue, congress has been interested. But recently the house energy and Commerce Committee started moving piecemeal Net Neutrality bills, so they moved a bill from chairman walden that makes permanent an exemption from certain parts of the rules for small businesses, and they moved a bill that would prohibit the fcc from using the Net Neutrality rules for rate regulation. These are all small things that chip away at the order but, obviously, you know, if the Court Strikes it down or holds it up, that changes the game entirely for the legislative battle. And then you have thune saying hes work on a bipartisan Net Neutrality lille which weve heard for over a year, but hes insistent that hes till doing it x theyre getting close to a deal. If the Court Upholds the rules, theres really no reason for democrats to come to a deal, and the Court Strikes down a deal, theres no reason for republicans to come to the table. So this will change a lot in terms of the dynamickings on the hill. Guest well, and also, the court might only uphold part of the rule, so it might perhaps uphold the classification for your Cable Companies, your wire Line Communication providers but maybe not wireless, so you could end up with split regulation possibly, and the fcc could have to go back and redo the rules, and that could create tumult on the hill as well. Host cory bennett, when it comes to 2016 and some of the issues you cover, how is that going to play out . Guest you havent seen much discussion of cybersecurity broadly. It seems to be an issue people are afraid to wade into, potentially revealing a lack of understanding, a lack of knowledge. Ben carson issued a cybersecurity policy paper recently that was dissected very critically by the community. What you have seen is incrimination come to the fore encryption come to the forefront in the wake of paris and san san bernardino. Encryption now has become the one element of cybersecurity that is brought up constantly as part of National Security, but as also part of a privacy discussion. We were talking earlier about privacy. Encryption is an issue that many people feel very strongly about in the private community, in the Tech Community that we need full, robust, unbreakable encryption in order to protect basic online activities, online banking, online shopping, those everyday activities that people probably dont realize are reliant on encryption. They say that any access to encryption, any type of guaranteed access toen encryption inherently introduces some type of vulnerability that would expose all of that data not only to investigators, to government officials, but also nefarious hackers, foreign spies, those kinds of people. Obviously, the pendulum has somewhat swung in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Law enforcement and many of the president ial candidates, as well as the democratic president ial candidates, weve seen a lot of tough talk from both of them in the sense that they want Law Enforcement to have some type of access to that data whether its when theyre served with a court order or whether theyre required to by a bill passed through congress. Were seeing a lot of that from the republican side and on the democratic side weve seen talk about, well, we need to work with them on a voluntary basis. We dont want to mandate anything, we dont want to mandate a technical back door here, but we want to work with them. So hopefully, they can give us data voluntarily. Host whats the view from congress on this . Guest i think one of the interesting things about the encryption debate is how global the perspective is. Because, you know, a lot of members will argue, okay, yes, say we mandate that apple give us access to i messages which are currently incriminated, the terrorist groups can just move to a russianbased company where there is no back door, and weve just kind of were playing whackamole at that point and not really solving the problem. This really will come down to, i think, a lot of cooperation both within the u. S. , but also on a global scale. And, you know, were just kind of beginning these conversations in earnest. I think this is the kind of thing its not like the administration necessarily has a cohesive perspective on this. You kind of hear Different Things from different branches and different people. I think this is a conversation thats just starting. Guest whats interesting is, as you mentioned, the white house has not necessarily put its foot down on this, and we can expect the white house to do this perhaps in the coming weeks. In december they said they were going to deliver an updated stance on encryption policy. We have not seen it, but it can be expected soon, and a lot of people are looking to the white house, both lawmakers, privacy advocates to kind of lead the debate here because congress, i dont think, is going to go anywhere on. There are perhaps multiple proposals, some for guaranteed is the, some for a National Commission to discuss the issue. But really i think everyones looking to the white house to lead the discussion here, and we could see that updated policy stance in the coming weekings. Guest well, and as you mentioned, theres a lot of debate at these higher levels, but within the government itself theres a lot of ongoing efforts, some agencies, state department to do not only information sharing among themselves, but also with their counterparts abroad. So while the administration and lawmakers continue to work on this, theres still quite a bit of action thats being done at the agency level. Guest i think its interesting to, i mean, just, you know, kind of going off that, weve seen with the safe harbor deal that was just i guess what are they calling it, the Privacy Shield now . Which is a wonderful rebranding. So weve seen that, and we also have seen, you know, even a Law Enforcement agreement between the e. U. And the u. S. To share more data about crimes, transatlantic, share that day. And so we have seen a number of these datasharing agreements, yet they are often contingent on the u. S. Strengthening its own privacy laws. Guest yeah. And the senates going to have to vote on the redress act soon which is kind of this huge condition of the Privacy Shield. So itll be interesting to see if theres last minute objections or if europe ends up being happy with the bill that congress turned out. Its definitely very much