They seem to have found the right landing spot on a couple of decisions. There are a couple of pieces i would take issue with that will articulate that in coming days. Iser one issue reported that it doesnt preempt states from doing their own thing. Commissioner orielly as i read the piece, it is not a proactive preemption structure. It still allows challenges to states where the item would be in conflict with our rules. It will lead to more statebystate challenges, casebycase challenges, than the overall, overarching one i was hoping for. Because what you are going to see is, a number of states have already acted in doing certain things i disagree with, you will see others jump in, and having 50 different states pull us in different directions, some with Net Neutrality one way, some with Net Neutrality another way, is not what the structure should be. Not interstate commerce. Its why we have an interstate commerce clause, and it is not something they have expertise in. Structure,nition, my my analysis of the architecture, there is no intrastate traffic on the internet. Peter joining us to drill down into this case and other issues from cq roll call who covers technology and telecom. About the Net Neutrality case, what are your concerns . You talk about statebystate than they would be potentially litigated on a statebystate basis. What do you mean by casebycase and what do you see is the top issues you would confront . Commissioner orielly some states have gone after the procurement side, some have an entire regime based on rules we struck down down replaced with our recent action, so i dont know what the particular state activity would be, but if it runs counter to our policy we would likely challenge that activity under our authority. So it would be under a statebystate basis rather than, here is the governance for traffic on the internet and Internet Access and broadband access, and we are going to have to deal with it at the federal side. Now we will get more litigants, more lawyers, probably more legal challenges. You already mentioned states are looking at differently. Can you lay out how they have already been shaping up . Commissioner orielly it depends on the state. They all have a different nuance to them. That is exactly why our founders had the establishment of the state commerce clause. It is for that situation where traffic is interstate in nature and now you have 50 states pulling us in different ways based on their peculiarities in the state. Some are going after procurement, some go after the full enchilada, so we try to answer this question proactively, which is the right activity and defensible. The morty the minority opinion was articulated well but didnt win at this juncture, but there is many more rounds, i am sure. Gopal how does it play out . We are now on the verge of the 5g era. How do you think this decision in the way the court framed it play into how the 5g architecture comes about . Commissioner orielly i only had an hour with the decision and havent digested it yet. It does get to the issue of preemption, the matter i have talked about. We need preemptive activity to have a fulsome 5g rollout. Govern the wireless side of the equation and i envisioned that will be challenged. It has been challenged once. We take further action, that will be challenged in the courts. So it is a long litigation i had a lot of activity for lawyers. Peter in these early hours after the decision, the California California can move forward at this point, correct . Commissioner orielly you could say their reading of the decision has been proactively preempted, but we are still going to have a challenge to that decision as well as others that those affected. Peter you think the majority on the fcc will challenge that . Commissioner orielly it absolutely has to. Otherwise you get the lowest common denominator. Whatever state wants to be the most active, aggressive, backwards looking from a Net Neutrality perspective will become whatever he has to follow. Its not something you just offer in one particular area, it is a network of networks. Providers are trying to offer service nationwide, not every instance, but most instances you are Offering Service nationwide or in many states. A boundary of a state which may have been decided hundreds of years ago, based on geography or some military conflict, i think that is where one decision goes this way and one goes that way and it is just artificial. Gopal i want to talk more about the 5g aspect of your work and the commission. There has been a lot of criticism in the last several months of how the commission has gone about optioning the spectrum, and some of your colleagues on the commission have also said it has been focused too much on the socalled high end of the spectrum, and not enough of the midband spectrum. Is that a valid criticism . Commissioner orielly i disagree with the criticism. What i have tried to do is address the issue. I spent the last three years working to make midband a priority of the commission. I spent a ton of time in the Previous Commission in my early years working on highbandwidth tom wheeler and getting the right portfolio is out there. Conversationr of about mid bands. I was one of the early people to recognize we have to spend time on midband. I was screaming mid bands earlier and helped change the process from within, working with colleagues, working with the chairman to get midband. We Just Announced the auction for pb rs last week. In terms of working with other agencies, talk a little more about that process. Is that process working as it should and it has in the past . Or is it breaking down and there is an coordination between different agencies . Commissioner orielly each administration is different. This has been more contentious than in the past. All spectrum issues are more complex. They arent easy decisions anymore. Every band we look at today for new Wireless Service is something that is going to potentially alter somebody else, whether they are nearby or in the band today. We have to deal with that reality. That makes some agencies jittery about things they use the service for. We are an independent Regulatory Agency that has a statute that governs our activity and we are also governed by the record. We respect agencies and their views but their licenses are governed in some instances buy an ka artwork through an ka work through some instances nka. A, and work through speaking of how differences get worked out, there has been a lot of reporting i and others have done a, both saying a decision by the commission to allocate one of the bands of 5g could interfere with weather forecasting. People from the fcc have said that is not necessarily the case. Help us understand where the differences could have emerged, or where a different set of models used by the commission that the agencies didnt understand. Commissioner orielly we are looking at a protection standard and what is the right landing spot on a protection standard. We had agreement among federal agencies for a number of years and just before our federal auction this year on the 24 gigahertz, they said we have differences and we are going to take them internationally, wrc 19 in egypt. We disagree with that analysis. We are talking about passive bands that are adjacent and this is something our technical post our technical folks went through, what the needs are. Their studies were troubled. In one instance they were counting on a sensor on a satellite that didnt even exist. I have difficulty with what they raised and certainly they used the political process to further their cause and it is more difficult to get possible resolution in the matter. Agenda for is the the next set of auctions . Commissioner orielly we are moving forward to auction off midband spectrum. We are working hard to complete the broad deck to complete the process on cbrs, the auction starts june 2020. We are working hard to include a bsolution on see band on c and. We hope to have a revolution have a resolution. The chairman is optimistic for this fall. I think at least 300 megahertz are going to be available for new 5g Wireless Services in the United States to complete globally with other countries countriese other trying to outrace us to be first in wireless technologies. We will have a two. Five gigahertz auction at some point. That will keep us going for a while. We will operate in auction as it relates to universal service to mixer subsidies we put out to make sure broadband gets to the hardest to reach areas of america are done in an efficient way and we are waiting to schedule that auction. Peter is that to address the urbanrural divide . Commissioner orielly it is. It is not just urbanrural. Different pockets in the u. S. Dont have service today. Most of those are in Rural America. Anyone who doesnt have service should and we are trying to make that available. About 3. 5, Just Announced. Some colleagues on your commission have said that needs to be advanced, and we shouldnt wait until next year. And in fact, some of the midband should be auctioned ahead of the more highend spectrum in the pipeline. Do you agree . Do you agree the midband auction should be advanced ahead of the other ones . Commissioner orielly i dont think at this point we would change the timing. We have announced a date, therefore people raise capital, make Business Model decisions, work with partners, figure out offerings, things of that nature. But have i articulated internally that we should have sped up a midband auction . Absolutely. I have made that point publicly and privately. But once a decision is made, and we have an option scheduled for december of this year for bands 39, and 47, once that is in place, we have to move forward. Gopal you talked about midband and the need, but is the criticism valid that if most of the United States 5g network is going to build on these high band waves, it ends up being more expensive and could exacerbate the ruralurban divide because Telecom Providers are not going to go into sparsely half and populated rural areas with the millimeter wave. Is that a valid criticism . Commissioner orielly i dont think the heart of the 5g network is going to be high band. The heart is going to be midband. We are trying to move forward as fast as possible with midband. A number of providers already have midband spectrum available and have low band that they are dragging into midband capabilities as best they can. Some limitations on distance and the technology is improving on a daytoday basis. Im not sure that serves urban settings. Highdensity i bands will be wonderful what they offer. They might not be the best thing in Rural America and the short term. That is the reason for my push to make the situation better, work with what we have, work to progress the situation and not just throw bombs. Peter there has been some experimentation and 5g by different companies. When will it be readily available nationwide . Commissioner orielly it is more than just testing. We have had some deployments. It is a small scale at the current time, but it is exciting what it is going to be. We are aware of where it may take us in wireless, but it is going to be a slow progression. Because in the past, a new g. Ill replace the old g in this case, 4g will remain in 5g will be built on top of it and 4g will continue to advance in terms of speed and capabilities. They will work simultaneously and in partnership. You will see it develop and does things mature, all of a sudden you will realize, im getting 5g speed. But it is not going to be Something Like a eureka moment that of her buddy gets turned on at the same time. Peter what is the fcc approach when it comes to new antennas for 5g . Commissioner orielly we are working hard with localities and states that want to be helpful in deploying the networks of the future on the wireless side. And there are many. I would say most localities and states recognize the benefits and that their Consumers Want these technologies, but there are definitely some that are not of the mind and are trying to use the opportunity to either control power or money. They want to extract money out of the situation and charge thousands of dollars. That is not acceptable. I have testified in front of congress that we need to preempt those situations under the authority given. A number of likely challenges, it has already been challenged, and we will see where we land. But at some point i imagine congress will answer the question, what is our authority in the space, and if they want us to have a preeminent position in the world in terms of wireless technology, we may have to continue to push localities that are not doing the right thing out of the way. Talked about the decision on equity pulse the fcc made, that has been challenged, one of the challenges is new york. There were also members of congress who have said the the commissions decision was taking away states rights. How do you expect those differences to be resolved . Commissioner orielly i worked in regional provisions in my past life on capitol hill and have regard for the statute and what it intended at the time. I have difficulty when people fight on the issue of aesthetics. Decided wengress will have it on the federal level and is not something every localities going to say, is that pole pretty enough . Thats not acceptable. Same with our frequency in mission that is dedicated by in additionhe fcc, to our medical entities. It is not a state by state or locality by locality deciding what is the rf emission acceptable level. In terms of placement towers, we are trying to build Networking Services to americans who really want them. That causes some strife with some ocalan hes either trying to control the power or want the money. We have to deal with that. That is why i am here at my job. Peter commissioner, it sounds like it has been a frustrating part of the employment for it of the deployment for you. Commissioner orielly very much so, something ive worked on for almost when he five years and forth. Up earlierbrought this big conference coming up in egypt at the end of october. Im told it is like the United Nations of the world radio spectrum, all of countries of the world all of the countries of the world getting together every four years. Commissioner orielly kind of like the spectrum olympics. Gopal spectrum olympics, even better. What do you expect to come out of this . Im hearing this will be a pivotal gathering where all the countries will decide how they whatdeploy 5g, and spectrum goes to respective countries. Commissioner orielly i was at and have a good basis of what i expect out of this round in egypt. Im hopeful the World Community will recognize the need for additional bands for mobile services globally. There are benefits in terms of harmonization, cost to manufacture, consumer ease, all the things that come with having a harmonized band globally. But if the International Community doesnt come to a resolution in egypt, and we arent able to make more bands, the u. S. Will look at other countries and has in other instances, two countries that are of a like mind, to move forward separate. We have an opportunity to cat very proactive and aggressive and have new bands available for wireless growth in the world. If the process does not work, the u. S. Will likely look elsewhere in a different structure. Differenceider the between the u. N. And other structures we use today. Gopal so you say there is a possibility that in this conference, there may not be unanimous he, and the United States might have to seek other countries . Commissioner orielly the United States is in a good position to work with colleagues and come up with resolution on a number of bands that are important, you mentioned 24 gigahertz, we will make resolution on that in our region. Think we can defend those Solutions Globally and i think we can defend those decisions globally. It absent of that route, the u. S. Will look forward because we are not going to stop wireless progress in the united for countries that, in my estimation it was based on competitive reasons, they werent ready come they didnt have the capital to move forward in the United States did because they werent ready at the time. Working withbout our geographical neighbors, canada, mexico, the caribbean . Is there a unanimous position on u. S. Policy . Commissioner orielly we work hard with regional partners. I was in ottawa for this purpose. We talked to regional partners, canadian friends, and found landing spots on all the different issues. I have worked aggressively with our friends in mexico. The caribbean has been active in spectrum issues. We try to find commonality in our region and take deposition and november. Ber peter i want to ask you about a Court Decision that came down on media ownership, and i want to quote from the decision. This was against the fcc. Did not adequately consider the effect of its sweeping media ownership changes and the effect that will have on broadcast media, women and racial minorities. Commissioner orielly i disagree with it. This is something the Third Circuit sent back to the fcc four times. There is no amount of evidence or data we can give them. Multiple administrations, republican and democrat, all administrations have not and able to get past the threshold the Third Circuit has set. We should challenge it in another forum, or gourd of the Supreme Court which i ultimately think we will have to do or go to the Supreme Court, which i ultimately think we will have to do. I disagree with their premise because it is locking in the status quote, which is not reflective of the media marketplace today. The marketplace today is not the same one when we wrote the original provision in 19 95th in 1995. The marketplace is much more dynamic and we need to reflect that. That is what we are trying to do. They have put up roadblocks for this purpose, the status quote was winning and our rules look exactly as they did in 1975 and 1976. But the world has changed and they have not. Commissioner orielly we havent mentioned china. Concern from people and congress and the administration and elsewhere that china has made significant gains in terms of 5g technology and they seem to be setting the global standard when it comes to the asiarum poor countries in and africa will end up leaning on. What is your take on china setting the global standard in terms of spectrum used for 5g . Commissioner orielly i dont think they are setting the standards. The u. S. Is helping a number of countries trying to be in the preeminent position on 5g and 60 eventually. Eventually. They have unlimited capital and no limitations in terms of deployment. They dont worry about a locality or state stepping in the way, they just run over until the people to move. Their totalitarian structure is awful. People are celebrating it, it is the 70th anniversary, it is beyond comprehension to me, but in terms of policysetting, they are throwing they have an industrial policy structure and they are intending to use all resources to succeed in that process. Im not willing to let that happen against u. S. Interests. Gopal and tomhuck schumer cotton, who dont agree a lot, the senators have sent a letter to the fcc to reexamine licenses because involving National Security and chinese governments increased role in economics and espionage requires a reexamination. That is a quote from the new york times. Commissioner orielly we are aware of the request and have had a number of proceedings on the matter. It is potentially troubling. We have to be mindful of that for our National Security. Criticisms is also a of the fcc. The previous administration, the Obama Administration had an initiative that included cybersecurity Risk Assessment as part of 5g deployment. This administration has gone back from that. Does that make sense . Should the fcc look at cybersecurity on the entire network as a predicate when it looks at development . Commissioner orielly i would love to answer your question but i dont get to answer that, congress does. I cant make up authority. When this commission came into power, we reviewed decisions in the past. I previously argued we didnt have authority on cybersecurity. If congress says, we would like lead onthe fcc take a cybersecurity, i would do what they ask. They have enacted statutes and given authority to a further given authorities to other federal agencies. That. T override i have to respect the decisions they make. If they change that, i will be a full partner in whatever they would like to do. We do look at 5g as part of our process. Im sorry, we do look at security as part of that process in some capacity, but we dont cybersecurity role given our lack of authority. It would be challenged in any respect. I respect former chairman tom wheelers viewpoint, but he and i have a disagreement. He has created pieces in the statute that dont exist. Peter are you frightened of huawei . Commissioner orielly i am frightened of no provider. Ahave concernspeter about situation, they come from a chinese company, with their government, so we are mindful of that and looking through what that means for our National Security. Peter what is the status of the Lifeline Program . It issioner orielly active today. Consumers that are eligible can still receive Lifeline Service and lifeline phones. We are turning it up to make help out waste, fraud and abuse. There have been a number of problems in the past. We are trying to address those in multiple layers and we are trying to make it as efficient as we can. The process is sometimes messy, but the program does exist today. There have been changes people at the right time. At the right time. You been looking at fraud and abuse. Absolutely, people have taken advantage of the program in the past. It is not acceptable to waste taxpayer dollars, particularly the poorest in america who pay at a higher rate than anybody else. I want to ask you about one more question about Net Neutrality at the d. C. Court of appeals, to read from the decision. It says the entity did not adequately address petitioner concerns about the effects of broadband reclassification on the Lifeline Program. There were three pieces they asked us to look at again and i imagine the chairman will do so in the proceeding and articulate why those situations are acceptable under the rules that we have framed. I dont see it as a huge barrier. One thing we didnt talk about, theres also the commission is considering a band , a spectrum band for driverless cars, set aside for driverless cars. I think there is some discussion about the wifi industry wanting some portion of it or all of it to be repurposed. Where do you come down on whether that particular band needs to be set aside for driverless cars, or more of it for wifi users . It was set aside in 1999 for automobile Safety Technology. The truth is that automobile Safety Technology has advanced youmultiple other bands spoke about the nine gigahertz band, ive been aggressive in saying we need to relook at this band, and i believe we could easily take a portion of that band and make it available for unlicensed technology and it can be shared. Of 75 dedicated to automobile safety, and then have 45 for everyone to use, including automobile companies. We think that is a formula that could be a winning solution for both. Some people are very committed to maintaining the 75 megahertz even though technology has passed us by and it is problematic from my viewpoint. A have you riden in driverless car yet . I dont believe i have. I have seen some tests. I would not call it a driverless car that i have written in, but ridden in, but it was close. Gentlemen, thank you for being on the communicators. The house will be in order. For 40 years, cspan has provided america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court, and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. And around the country so you can make up your mind. Created by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. President trump addressed members of the young black leadership summit in the east room of the white house. The event was part of turning point usas black leadership summit in washington, d. C. , featuring conservative leaders and activists