Your local cable or satellite provider. Speech than, your unfiltered view of government. Host Michael Orielly is one of five commissioners on the federal Communications Commission and he is our guest this week on the communicators. Welcome back. Commissioner orielly, its only been about an hour since the court decided the Net Neutrality case. Want to get your immediate reaction. Guest in fairness unstressed digesting the item, the decision from the court. Its quite lengthy. Im generally pleased. They seem to have found the right landing spot in a number of decisions. Our couple pieces i probably would take issue with them and probably articulate that in the coming days. Host one of the issues thats been reported is that it doesnt preempt states from doing their own thing. Guest as i read it its not a proactive preemption structure. It still allows the commission to go forward and child in states with the item would be in conflict with our rules. Its going to lead to more statebystate challenges, a casebycase analogy, challenge if you will than the overall arching what i was hoping for. What youre going to see is a number of states have acted in trying to do certain things i disagree with and youll see others jump in. Having 50 different states polis in different directions, some with Net Neutrality, is not what the structure should be. Its not interstate commerce. Its why we have interstate Commerce Clause in my opinion and is that something they have the expertise and because they are supposed to be governing in trustee traffic. My analysis of the architecture is the basically Interest Rate traffic on the internet intrastate traffic drama joining us to drown down in this case and other issues is gopal ratnam at cq roll call who covers technology and telecom. Thank you. Interesting, too made on the talk about the Net Neutrality case. What are your concerns . You talk about how some statebystate, potentially litigator on a casebycase basis. Can you talk about what, how do you see them . What you mean by casebycase and what you see a settop truth or issues you might end up confronting . Guest it depends on what estate in acts. Some states to connect to the procurement side. Some have an entire regime based on the rules we struck down and replaced with our recent action. I dont know what the particular state activity would be, but if it runs counter to what we are trying to do under policy we would likely go forward and challenge that activity under our authority. It will be 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 that at the federal side. We will get many more litigants, more lawyers and probably more legal challenges. Host you mentioned theres always some states looking at it when white and some others looking at it differently. Can you explain, laid out in terms of what, how theyve already been shaping up . Guest it depends on the state and theres number of different instances. Thats exactly why our founders have established an interstate Commerce Clause. Its for the situation where traffic is interstate in nature and now you have a 50 states in different ways based on their peculiarities in the state. Some are going after procurement, summer going after the full enchilada and so were trying to provide certainty, tried to add to this question proactively which was the right activity and defensible. The minority opinion was articulate pretty well. It didnt win at this junction but there are many more rounds i am sure. How does it play out . We are now on the verge of the 5g era. How do you think this particular decision and the way the court has fight it play into how the whole 5g architecture comes about . Guest in fairness i boneheaded our site havent digested and tried to think it does get the issue of preemption. It gets to the matter ive talked about, we will need preemptive activities to have a full some 5g rollout. There are other statutory provisions that govern the wireless side and so i i envisioned that we something that we challenge, all all in e courts. Its a long litigation and a lot of activity for lawyers. Host in the early hours after the decision, the California California can move forward at this point, correct . Guest you could say theyre reading of the decision, they are not practically preempted but were still going to have an opportunity to challenge the decision as well as others, those affected. Host do you think the majority on fcc will challenge that . Guest i think it actually has to because otherwise you get the lowest common denominator, whatever state wants to be most active, aggressive, backwards looking from a Net Neutrality perspective will become whatever provider, these are not gets a network of networks and providers are trying to offer service nationwide. Not every instance but in most instances they are Offering Services nationwide or in many different states. Saying a a particular boundaryf the state which may be decided decades or hundreds of years ago based on geography or some military conflict, i think thats what the internet, when decision goes this way and one windows that way, its just artificial. I want to talk more into the 5g aspect of your work and the commission. Theres been a lot of criticism in the last several months of how the commission has gone about auctioning the spectrum. Some of your colleagues on the commission of said its been focused too much on the socalled high end of the spectrum and not enough of the mid band spectrum. Is that a valid criticism . Guest i disagree with the criticism because what ive been trying to do is address the issue. I spent the last three years working to make midband a priority of of the commission. I spent a ton of time in the Previous Commission in my early years there working on highbandwidth tom wheeler and getting the right portals of the. I had a number of conversations its about midband, which is which. I was one of the early people to recognize which when to spend n the band. I was after screaming mid band early and helped change the process from within, working with my colleagues, working with the chairman to get mid band able for auction and thats where youre stunned to see, we Just Announced the auction last week. In terms of working with other agencies, talk about how the process, is that process working as it should as it has in the past or is it breaking down and it isnt enough coordination between the different agencies . Guest each administration is different. Visit the more contentious than ive experienced. All spectrum issues are becoming more complex. There are no easy decisions. Every band we are looking at today for new Wireless Service is something thats going to potentially alter someone else, whether they are nearby or in the band today. We have to deal with that fact and 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 also governed by the record. We respect agencies who weigh in on their views that their licenses are governed in some instances by ndaa and that process but we also have to respect it when we talk about harmful interference which is our standard it so different from how we treat federal agencies can how we treat others in this space. Speaking of differences and etiquette work out, theres been a lot of reporting and i and others have done on nasa and atmospheric noaa, saying the decision by the commission to allocate one of the vans for 5g could potentially interfere with the weather forecasting. People from the fcc have said thats the message of the case. Can you help us understand where the distinction of what the differences could have emerged, the different set of models and assumptions used by the commission that the other agencies didnt quite understand . Guest look, were looking at a protection standard and what is the right landing spot under protection standard. We have been working on that for a long while before we got to this point. We had agreement for a number of years and just before our auction this year on the 24 gigahertz they raise their hand is that we have differences here and will undertake them internationally, wrc 19 19 in egypt. We disagreed. We conduct a work in belief and were not talking a something there in 24. Were talking adjacent and this is something weve gone through our technical folks have gone through in terms of what was necessary can what the needs are. I found the studies were lacking in trouble. In one instance they were counting on a sensor on the satellite that didnt even exist. I have difficulty when its been raised and they abuse the political process in d. C. To further the cause and thats more difficult to get possible resolution in the matter. Host whats the agenda for the next set of auctions . Guest we are moving forward to auction off midbandd spectrum. Were working hard to complete the process on cbr risk and 3. 553. 57 to make those auctions available. Auction starts june 25, 2020. Were. Were working hard to conclude a resolution called cband. Ive worked extensively to make that happen. We hope to have resolution the chairman said he is optimistic this fall. Depending on how the outcome, how we can make some of the final cuts make that 500 megahertz or or good portion at least 300 megahertz will be available for new 5g Wireless Services in the United States to compete globally with other countries that are trying to raise as to be the first in the premier position of wireless technologies. We have a number of things were working forward. We have 2. 5 ghz auction gigahertz auction. That will keep us going. On top of that we will try and operate auction as relates to universal service dollars to make sure the subsidies we put out to make sure broadband gets to the hardest reach parts of america are done in a very efficient way and well auction that off and just waiting to schedule that. Trim is a help to address the urbanrural divide . It is. It is not just urbanrural. There are different pockets of the United States the Donut Service today. Most of those are in Rural America and were working hard to end anyone does have service, should at service and were trying to make that available. He talked about 3. 5 which was announced recently. Some of your colleagues on the commission has said that needs to be advanced and we should wait until next year. In fact, some of the mid band should be auctioned ahead of the more high in spectrum thats in the pipeline. Do you agree with that, that we need to speed up although the chairman said all of the above auctions above or you agree the midband should be spent at an advanced ahead of the other ones . Guest i dont think we would change the timing. Weve announced a date and, therefore, its time for people to raise capital, make their business decisions, work with partners, things of that nature. But have i articulated internally that we should have sped up the midbeen auction . Absolutely. I have made that point publicly and privately, but once a decision is made and we have an for december of this year for bands 37, 39 and 47, once those are in place we need to move forward. You have talked about the need for mid band but is the criticism valid that if most of the United States 5g network is built on these high band or millimeter waves, it ends up being more expensive than it could potentially exacerbate the world urban divide because Telecom Providers are not going to go into sparsely populated rural areas. Is that a valid criticism . Guest i dont think the heart of the 5g network is going to be all high then. Its going to be midband. Which i move move forward as fast as possible to give mid band. A number of providers have mid band spectrum available. High bands have been productive in terms of they have limitations on distance and the technology is improving on a day by day basis. Not sure, i think certain urban setting highbandwidth wonderful. Wonderful. They may not be the best they can Rural America in the short term and thats why i think theres a a role of commissions in my opinion that have to make the situation better and try to work with what we have and work to progress the situation and not just often just throw bombs. Host theres been some experimentation with 5g by different companies. What have you seeing and when do you think it will be readily available nationwide . Guest weve had some departments. Its more than just testing. It is a small scale at the current time but its exciting and what its going to be and where it might take us wirelessly. In terms of wins going to reach everybody it will be a slow progression. In the past a new ge replace the old jeep. In this case it will not. 4g will stay a long for an awful long time. 5g is built on top of it. 4g will continue to advance in terms of speed and capabilities. The two will work simultaneously and in partnership. I think youll see it develop as things mature and all of a sudden you realize im getting 5g speed but its not going to Something Like a eureka moment that i do and it gets turned on at the same time. Host whats the fcc approach when it comes to all attachments and new intended for 5g . Guest were working hard with those localities and states that want to be helpful in deploying the networks of the future on the wireless side. There are many of those. I with the most blue counties and states recognize the benefits that the Consumers Want these technologies but there are some that are not of the mind at a time he is the opportunity to the control power of money. I have testified will we need o bring situations under authorities its given. Its been shows and a couple of decisions weve made and would like to see with the lay of the land is. At some point a matching congress will answer the question what is our authority, and if they want us to have a preeminent position in the world in terms of wireless technology, we may have to push, continued to push localities that arent doing the right thing out of the way. You talked about the decision the fcc made and that is being challenged out. One of them is new york. There was also some members of congress who felt the commissions decision was taking away the states rights. How do you expect this set of differences to be resolved . Guest i worked in some of the original positions in my past life on capital cipher regard for the statute and what is expected, what it was intended at the time. I have difficulty when people fight on the issue of aesthetics. That was left to the congress who decided we will have on the federal level, the something every locality will say is that poll pretty enough for my locality . That will not be acceptable behavior. Same thing with rf, greater frequency. That was something that would be dedicated and is dedicated by statute to the fcc. Not based in addition to our medical entities. Its not something will have state by state or locality by locality deciding what is the rf emission of acceptable level. In terms of the placement of towers were trying to build and networking Geek Services to america to really want them, that causes some strife with certain localities that are either trying to control the power want the money. We have to do with that and thats why im here at my job. Host that sounds like its been a frustrating part of the deployment for you . Guest very much so. Its been something ive worked on, almost 25 years and the debate keeps coming back and forth. You brought up earlier this big conference thats coming up in egypt end of october. This is untold like the United Nations of the world radio spectrum come all the countries of the world get together once every four years and they decide tragic like to spectrum olympics. Even better. What do you expect to come out of this . Im hearing this will be a pivotal gatherings were all the countries will decide how they will deploy 5g and what kind of spectrum to use respective countries. What do you expect to come out of his . Guest im pushing forward, i was at wrc 15 and i did pretty good basis on 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 is benefits terms of harmonization, cost to manufacture and consumer benefits and all things that come with having a harmonized band globally. I have said publicly if the International Community doesnt come to resolution in egypt and we are not able to make more bands, the United States will for other countries and has, countries that are of a like mind to move forward separate from wrc. We have a real opportunity to get very proactive and aggressive, and have new vans available for wireless growth in the world. If the process doesnt work the United States will likely have to look elsewhere in a different structure, you know, people consider the difference between the u. N. And some of the different other structures that we use today. So youre saying theres a possibility that in this conference that may not be unanimity and the United States might have to seek of the countries to build guest the United States is in a good position to work with its colleagues and come up with resolution on a number of bands that are important, a number of decisions. You mentioned the 24 gigahertz, we can make resolution in that in in a region and we can take those positions and defend those globally and that would be a a successful outcome at the end of november. But absent that if it doesnt go that route, the United States what to look forward because will not stop widest progress in the United States on countries who have been quite honestly, in my estimation is based on competitive reasons. They were not ready, didnt have the capital to move forward and the United States did and weve done that because they were not ready at the time. Host commissioner orielly, what about working with our geographical neighbors, canada, mexico, the caribbean . Is there pretty much a unanimous position going into wrc . Guest we work hard with our regional partners. I was in ottawa for this exact purpose and we talked to regional partners, our canadian friends and found 90 spots on all the different issues. Ive worked aggressively with our friends in mexico, the caribbean has been very active in spectrum issues and so we do try to find commonality amongst our region and take that position to wrc in october, november. Host before we run out of time here i want ask you you about another Court Decision that came down this one on media ownership at a want to from the decision. This was about, against the fcc that the fcc did not adequately considered the effect of its sweeping media ownership world changes, but that will have on ownership, broadcast media by women and racial minorities. Guest i disagree with the analysis. This is something the Third Circuit has sent back to the fcc four times. There is is no amount of evidence, no amount of data we can give them. Multiple administrations have not been able to get past the threshold that the Third Circuit has established. I can figure out a path forward. I so we should change this in another form with the end on blanc situation about is the Supreme Court which alterman will have to do because this, theres a pathway can get to what youre asking for. I disagree with her fundamental premise. I disagree with activity because it is lacking in the status quo which is not reflective of the Current Media marketplace today. The marketplace where today is not the same unwin wrote the original provision in 1995 which became the 96 act. The world has changed considerably. The marketplace is much more dynamic for Video Services and Audio Services in wind to reflect that. It was a charge we were given by congress and thats what were trying to do. Theyve been putting up roadblocks and the status quo is winks are both look as accurate as he did in 1975, 1976 and some of the early 90s with mate but the world has changed. They have not. We havent mentioned china in this conversation at theres a lot of concern from people and congress and the administration and elsewhere that china has made some significant gains in terms of Hygiene Technology and also they seem to be setting the global standard when it comes to the kind of spectrum that poor countries in asia and africa will end up leaning on. How do you expect first of all, whats your take on china setting the global standard engine spectrum use for 5g . Guest i dont think theyre setting the standard. The United States is helping a number of countries pushing for trying to be the preeminent position on 5g services and 60 eventually as well. They have a structure that uses unlimited capital of the peoples money and has no limitations in terms of deployment. They dont worry about locality or state stepping away. They just went over the situation to people they need to move. It is beyond comprehension of 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 the process. Im not willing to let that happen against the United States interest. Host i apologize worst of all, but Chuck Schumer and tom cotton, dont agree on a lot come have sent a letter to the fcc asking that licenses be reexamined because quote the evolving National Security and increase knowledge of the chinese governments role in economics and of the forms of espionage requires a reexamination, thats a quote from new york times. Guest i mindful of the lead and request and we are actively looking at and have been and is been talked about. We have a number of proceedings on this matter. Their activity and will potentially have the data could be used from these networks is potentially troubling and we have to be mindful of that for our National Security. This has also been a criticism of the current fcc, which is the previous administration, obama administration, they had an initiative that include cybersecurity Risk Assessment as part of the 5g rollout and appointment, this administration has drawn back from that. Doesnt make sense . Should fcc be looking at cybersecurity and security of the entire network as a predicate when it looks at the government . Guest i love to answer your question but but i dont t into that. Congress does. I cant make up authority thats not there. When we came in, this commission came into power we reviewed what decisions were in the past. Argued we didnt have authority on cybersecurity. If Congress Changes its mind and says we could take a lead, i will do it to ask. In the meantime they theyve ed a number of statute what it given that authority and those responsibilities to other federal agencies. I cant override that. I cant overwrite statute that he been enacted multiple times given authority to all my ticket and other agencies. I have respect the decisions. If you want to change it i will be a full partner and acting whatever they like to do. We do look at 5g as part of our process. We do look at sorry, we do look at security as part of the process in some capacity but we dont take our active cybersecurity rules. We dont have them as they pertain to take about our lack of authority. I respect former chairman tom wheelers viewpoint on this but he and i have a disagreement and hes created pieces in the statute that dont exist. Host are you frightened of huawei . Guest im frightened of no provider in the world today. I have concerns about every situation that may come from a Chinese Company and the relationship with their government. We are mindful of that, and looking through what that means our National Security. Host whats the status of the Lifeline Program . Guest it still active today. Consumers can still, that are eligible can still receive Lifeline Service and lifeline phones. We are installing and National Verifier process statebystate turning it up to make sure we can help root out waste right and views. The program is at a number of problems in the past were trying to address those both in multiple different layers and were working hard to make that, make it as most efficient as it possibly can. The process sometimes messy but the program does exist today. There are some changes people have looked to make in some changes in policy and i will be open to considering those at the right time. Host you can look at some of those cases of fraud and abuse. Guest absolutely. With enforcement actions. People taken revenge of the program in the past and thats not acceptable to waste of ratepayer dollars, particularly fall on the poorest individuals in america who pay those in high anyone else. Host you forget to the last question on what to ask you about one more question about the Net Neutrality decision at the d. C. Court of appeals, to read from the decision it says, the agency did not adequately address petitioners concerns about the effects of broadband reclassification on the Lifeline Program. Guest right. There were three pieces theyve asked us to look at again and i imagine the chairman will do so in a proceeding and articulate why the situations are acceptable under the rules that we have framed. So i dont see that as a huge barrier to addressing what the courts thought. One thing we didnt talk about, the commission is considering a spectrum of band for Driverless Cars. Thats been set aside for Driverless Cars and now i think theres some discussion about the wifi industry wanting some portion of it, or all of it to be repurposed. Where it you come down and whether that particular band needs to be set aside for Driverless Cars or more of it needs to be made available for the wifi users . Guest its broader because of set aside in 1999 for automobile Safety Technology. The truth is automobile Safety Technology has advanced and multiple of the bands of other technology outside of, you speak of the 5. 9 gigahertz spectrum. We need to relook at this band and i believe we could easily take a portion of the band and make them available for an unlicensed technology to enter and be a shared been. We could have a situation where 30 megahertz is dedicated of the 75 is dedicated for automobile safety only instill a 45 megahertz that are going can use include the automobile company. We think that is a point of that i talked about for quite a while that can be a winning solution for both. Some people are very committed to maintaining the 75 megahertz even though though technology has passed us by and thats problematic from my view. Host have you ridden in a driverless car get . Guest i dont believe i have. I have seen some test in the parking lot and had written in them. I will if i would call it a driverless car but its close, Michael Orielly has been on the fcc since 2013. Gopal ratnam is with cq roll call. Gentlemen, thank you for being on the communicators. Guest appreciate it. For 40 years cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court in Public Policy events from washington, d. C. And around the country so you can make up your own mind. Tweeted by cable in 1979 cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Next, general joseph votel who served as commander of u. S. Central command during the obama and trump administrations sat down for an interview with former defense undersecretary michele flournoy. They discussed china, russia and iran as well as Current Technology and intelligence. This is 30 m