Association. Good afternoon, everyone. If folks can take their seats, i think were going to get started. Thanks again for being here. Im vanessa cinders and i have the pleasure of leading chart rers team here in washington. We really appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule to listen to this great lineup of speakers. Weve convened this group today to talk about a spectrum issue thats critically important to 5g and broadband deployment. Were going to start with an introduction of the plan then move to an expert panel discussion. Its my pleasure to interview matt polka of acc connects and steve berry of cca. Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to our briefing on this important issue. My name is matt polka, president and ceo of aca connects. Americas communications association. Formally known as the american cable association. And we are very, very pleased to be here today along with our partners at chatter and cca to talk to you u about this important issue that affects all of our members, the 700 members of aca connects that are in every state providing phone, broad band, Video Service and very, very remote areas, hard the to reach areas. Doing great job on delivering that broad band promise. But today were very happy to talk to you about our 5g plus plan because we think that this fcc proceeding thats underway is is really critical for the future of not only wireless, but wire Line Communications in our country. And if done right, with the work that the fcc can do, it can release enormous amounts of spectrum for 5g service, other next Generation Wireless Services and to propel fiber activity throughout own country and rural areas. So we support the fcc seizing this opportunity and thats why aca connects has joined with charter and with cca in this plan. Charter and cca two users current users of c band spectrum and providers of 5g Wireless Services to develop and present what we consider to be a new path with unprecedented benefits for the american public. Let me cover what those plans and those paths are. First, our 5g plus plan has two fundamental goals. As steve will cover in a moment, it frees up at least 370 megahertz for 5g services or nearly double any other proposal use iing a transparent spectrum auction overseen by the fcc. Further, it will make current c band use errs whole and provide meaningful incentives for them to forgo their existing rights. We think spectrum under this plan will be available for 5g and other service fs in urban areas in at least 18 months. And in many rural areas within 36 month, so were talking about a lot of spectrum. Talking about getting it out to the public to use quickly. Second, our plan will use auction proceeds to help support the deployment of a nationwide fiber based video Programming Network to all multichannel video programming distributors throughout the country. And based on analysis, youll hear from a firm over a fiveyear period we believe that we can readily roll out 120,000 root miles of fiber required for this network. More over, all of this fiber will not just be used to deliver high eququality video programmi but it can become a fundamental part of our infrastructure for Rural America. Supporting the deployment of 5g, enabling significant smart grid and Smart Metering applications, focusing on telehealth, Public Safety services and many other things. One final but very, very important benefit of this plan is that we believe this plan will create 100,000 jobs and another 100,000 jobs. So this plan when you study it is a win win for all stake holders certainly in this proceeding and for the american public. It provides the spectrum that we need for next Generation Wireless Services. It provides a seamless transition mechanism working with the fcc through u a process, a transparent process led by the fcc that will make both earth station and satellite operators whole through that process. It will incentivisent vise user move towards terrestrial delivery and u. S. Dollars flowing to the u. S. Treasury while advancing connectivity in Rural America. Win win. My pleasure now to turn over the podium to steve. Thank you very much. Steve. Thank you. Appreciate it. Good afternoon and thank you. We have standing room only. We have some refreshments over here. If youre not going to bother anybody if you want to go get a little bite the eat. Thank you so much for coming. Im president and ceo of cca. Cca, a little about cca. The nations leading association for competitive wireless providers and stake holders across the united states. Members range from small, medium and large carriers. Some serving less than 5,000 customers. To regional and nationwide carriers that serve millions of customers. As well as the vendors that support that ecosystem in the wireless world. Everyone will play a role in building out 5g. We know that. But these are the carriers, the operators that will pay for spectrum licenses and put it to use to serve consumers particularly in urban and rural areas of the united states. Long with aca connects and charter, we appreciate your attendance today to discuss an important issue of cband spectr spectrum. Matt briefly touched on transitioning content delivery to proven Fiber Technologies will help deploy fiber in underserved and unserved markets. This will also allow the fcc to make more spectrum available and keep the consumers appetite for demand for Wireless Services and power the 5g world. Spectrum is a finite resource. Its owned by the taxpayers. And licensed by the government. For wireless consumers, 5g services will revolutionize consume r experiences in every aspect of our lives. It will power the latest health, telehealth improvements. Distance learning. Autonomous vehicles, augmented and virtual reality. Public safety a high priority and other services that really are not imagined yet. While theres a lot of hype around the 5g services, these will not be possible without additional allocations of spectrum. Wireless fiber as i like to call it, the air waives that actually power the Wireless Services. The cband between 4 gig hurts, 500 megahertz represents a critical turning point in the future of the connectivity in america. All carriers must have low, mid and high band spectrum while low band propagates great distances and high band gives you the potential for blistering speeds, mid band spectrum has c band has a unique balance supporting blend of distance and capacity. C band will be particularly important in deploying 5g services in Rural America. The 500 megahertz, the size of the band is one of the last opportunities for carriers to obtain as much needed spectrum and with these large block size, sh Faster Services can be acquired. Satellite companies, the incumbents of the users of the band, have selfidentified that they are not maximize iing the potential or the use of this band and theyre willing to vacate some parts of it for consumer use. But i say that its a lost opportunity. Plain and simple. If we dont repurpose the maximum amount of spectrum possible with our pro comp the tigs plan, the fcc auction five or six licenses in every market. This will fuel competition and innovation. We cannot, that can only be done if we clear 300 megahertz or more. We can only imagine what the possibilities are. Our pro competition plan will inject a significant amount of fiber connectivity in Rural America as matt mentioned, which will help not only with backhaul on 5g, but help bring Broad Band Services to Rural America and as matt pointed out, this will ignite the investment in our fundamental infrastructure in america. Chairman pie state d the fcc plans to make a decision regarding the c band sometime this fall and we encourage him to review it and we encourage congress to use the properer guidance, oversight and stranz parnsy required to ensure that we maximize the potential for c band preserving public air ways for public good. This is a serious challenge and this is a serious solution and cca, aca connects and chart rer communications have come together with our proposal to free up hundreds of megahertz of c band for wireless use in an efficient, timely manmanueler. Our plan assures the sale of this taxpayer owned resource supports Fiber Networks and allocates through a transparent auction the guidance and expertise that only the fcc can bring. Revenues will benefit american taxpayers so youll hear a lot today about a well balanced plan to address a serious challenge and a great opportunity. So thank you one and all for joining. Again, if you need something to drink, we still have a few refreshments over here and ill turn it back over to vanessa that will keep us on schedule. Thank you. Thanks, steve and matt, for your introintroductions. I want to turn it over to nicos who has adviced acc connects on our 5g plus plan. Thanks so much. Good evening, everyone. Let me do a brief introduction. Im the principal with cartisian, one of the oldest firms in the Telecom Space with over 30 years of advising clients in the telecom sector. What id like to do is walk you through, it will be the mechanics of the plan starting with what is as steve explained before, its a very desirable part of the spectrum. The reason why is is that its not too low in the fm frequencies, its not too high so it doesnt have characteristic, not going too far or not penetrating walls. So its right in between and intuitively, if you think about it, its between the wifi frequencies. Its 3. 7, 4. 2. Its right in fwebetween so itn idea parking lot of the spectrum for wireless communications. Let me talk about how this is being used today. This is 500 megahertz of spectrum. A big part of it is completely unused. So so 180 is not being used. This is the part thats been proposed to be reformed. From the remaining spectrum thats in use, the largest part, 170 megahertz is being used for cable programming and another, so if you have the use, you get 350 plus u the guard. 370 megahertz, which is what our plan is going after. What remains in the 130 megahertz ban is known as 350. Think about radio. Religious programming and a number of other applications that are completely mobile. So our plan, which we filed in early july, by transitioning off the mvp programming to fiber, we get to release far more spectrum but at the same time, one of f the great lebfts here is rural Fiber Deployment. Ill explain more about how that deployment will happen in subsequent slides. Am also given that were able to auction, our proceeds are far greater and that allows them to end up with the u. S. Treasury. I will mention that we have calculate d that up to 29 billion r for the u. S. Trashry fr treasury from this process. Ill walk you through the mechani mechanics. The most important part is how we transition the cable programming off satellites. What you see this, on the left hand side, you see a studio beaming to a satellite and Cable Provider then distributing it over to u. S. Households. Thats extremely viable in u. S. Areas. Some of the fiber already exists and they get to be a fiber today but what were proposing is moving all the content out of fiber so we have to build fiber between the data centers and connect the cable to the remote so from there on, they can keep distributing it the same way as before. Then what happens with 130 megahert. Over that, we will be repack in its a process the satellite operators go through from time to time and we are talking about repacking all of the lower frequencies into the upper 130 megahertz so the 370 b can be free. Reimbursements will cover the cost of transition fiber and there will be inicentives for that to happen in a timely manner and from a timing perspective, up to 18 months for areas, these are the areas that already have fiber today. Think about dense metro areas where the large Cable Providers are already connected to the y data centers. Toup three years for most areas where there is might be required for redundancy reasons. Let me make a note here that when we talk about having access to some fiber so they can have internet. What our plan is proposing is not building fiber. It proposes reenforcing the connectivity of those systems so that the content can go through. So having more capacity and adding more reliability through links so that delivery can happen in very reliable manner. Out of which 120,000 miles of fiber would be constructed. Object with that investment in fiber, there will be lots and lot of jobs that will be createded. 100, 200,000 jobs is the direct kind of estimation weve made. We estimate 30 to 37 billion from the auctions. Probably a lot more than that. Cost reimbursements will be 9 to 11 billion to facile it the transition to fiber. Incentives that are going to be determine and up to 29 billion in benefits that end up with a u. S. Treasury. The rule broad band. We are talk iing about 420,000 miles of fiber which will be either leased or built in those rural areas and over 700 Cable Systems that will be connected with fiber. This is quite a large deployment and this will increase the fiber connectivity in rural areas. It will increase the reeliabiliy of internet in those areas and also fiber competition. Youll have more options. As a result of that, you can have smart grid corporations. Theyll do smart meters and Grid Operations that will be isps that would offer more higher speeds. Even the Cable Providers could be operating speeds and that fiber can become the backbone for 5g connectivity in those rule areas. Since the most significant element for 5g is having fiber to backbone those small cells. So it serves allpurposes in that regard and regarding the jobs, economists have started the effect of fiber investment. There are some multipliers that will wellknown and weve estimated with those hundred thousand direct jobs and another 100,000 indirect jobs being created from that. All. Thank you so much. Now i want to turn it over to john wilkins whos going to lead a short discussion with our experts. John is the former chief operating officer of the fcc and was a former fcc r Wireless Bureau chief. And he has a lot of expertise in these issues. Hes going to take questions. The floor is is yours. Thank you. We could take the rest of the time giving the backgrounds of the panels so were going to do the opposite and go quickly and get into the questions. Im going to go down and start on the front of the table and work back. Just quick introduchovnies. So ductions. Ross is the Vice President of Government Affairs for aca connects and you heard about aca connects mission from matt a second ago. Coming back towards me, tim donovan is the senior Vice President of ledge affair frs cca. Next to ill let colleen say a couple of words in case yu dont know him. First of all, Vice President of affairs after at chatter and i wanted to start by thanking you for being here. Within chart rer, i focus on wireless and spectrum issues and id like everything from charter here acknowledge how much everybodys excited about spectrum whos coming here but charter is a Cable Company we serve across 41 states. Were very interest nd the c band both as a company that serves millions of Customers Using c band satellite delivery to serve our customers and as a company thats moving into wireless and looking at 5g spectrum and how that can be used to increase connectivity for our customers so were really excited about this plan which we think does a lot of this, provides fiber and spectrum. Happy to talk about that. Thanks. Next to colleen is phillip. The policy director for public nonl. You want to do the two seconds on Public Knowledge . Yeah, sure and thanks, john, and thanks for charter and aca and cca for inviting Public Knowledge today. Im the policy director r for Public Knowledge. Were a consumer and Public Interest advocacy organization. Weve spent the last two decades its a way to deal with digital issues. Provide competition, bring more hois choices, competition and lower prices to consumers. And last but not least, ross from the tax payers production lines. The Taxpayers Protection Alliance is a group found in 2011. We focus on any issue related the taxpayer and customer issues and making sure the unintended consequences with state and local government actions are highlighted and brought to everyones attention and we focus on a broad array of issues including c band and spectrum issues to make sure the Digital Divide is closed with minimal taxpayer resources so im happy to be here today to discuss those broad band issues as it relates to c band and taxpayers being made whole. Thank you. So were going to launch into questions and leave some time at the end so if you have questions, hold them and well take them around 12 45 or 12 50. As im sure some of you are thinking from the overview of the plan, its a complicateded issue, but its really, really important. In the world of telecom policy, its a hugely important issue. We want to start with a couple of questions r that are more high level and make sure were not missing the forest for the trees before we go into more detailed questions. Let me start at the end of the table. Actually, we have two ross. Last name, first initial. Lets really for the audience really lay it out. Why is c band so important . And a also for members who are bringing broad band and Wireless Services across the country and in smaller and rural markets. Thanks. C band is important because spectrum is important. All of the Wireless Networks delivered today and all of the potential 5g services dont happen if carriers dont have access to spectrum. Its a finite resource. We only have what we have. We arent making any more of it so its super important to be efficient users of that. This c band in particular as the mid band weve heard the benefits of balancing the throughput capacity and propagation distance, is also a large allocation of continuous spectrum. The 500 megahertz. So what that means is if you can repurpose as much of it as b possible, you have larger blocks and as the Wireless Technology is put into place especially with 5g, these larger blocks allow you to have more of the benefits. Theres an exponential growth of the ability of these Wireless Networks request you have these larger allocations, so if you think of how spectrum has been licensed before in the wireless space, initially, it was for voice communications. Who uses voice on their phone anymore . Everything has shifted to data. Everyo even voice runs over data. So we need to look at this opportunity to refarm one oof these large allocations of mid band spectrum and make it the most efficient way to power the nations wireless needs particularly as were on the cusp and carriers are starting to deploy 5g networks. Let he start by saying most if not all what tim said, we agree with. Obviously for the country as a whole important were in a good position for wireless. Particularly for the small and rural operators, we rely on the c band today in order to receive National Cable programming streams we then offer to our customers. In many of those areas, satellite is tonl way to get those signals because fiber isnt available. So as we approach this proceeding, and i think similarly to broadcasters and radio stations and churches and others that are utilizing c band and dont see other options, we took the approach of how do we find the right balance between the balance of freeing up more spectrum and ensuring that users of the c band are kept whole and their customers continue to receive the services they can. Thats where we looked at our 5g plus plan and said you know what, Cable Operators are willing to step up. Theyre willing to transition off of the c band in order to free up the capacity but in change, we need an alternative Delivery System which is fiber and we recognize the benefits of freeing that up gi gives us the fiber we would need to not only continue to deliver the video to custome customers, but to offer more services to the communities that these small Cable Operators are serving. Whether or not its fiber to the local hospital or Health Care Center or to smart grid technology, that might be available, theres a lot of additional benefits that Cable Operators can provide in their communities by having this connectivity. I will say from an fcc perspective, not that long ago, the idea of Cable Companies would be an unusual thing. Thats one unusual thing about the c band is Cable Companies, whats the right analogy. They have multiple dogs in all parts of this fight. They both distribute Programming Using c band and colleen talked about this in her introduction. Theyre also think iing about Wireless Services. So you toucheded on this on your first remark. How does charter think about this at the Company Level given that you are doing c band for the old uses and have plans to use it for the new u uses and have to do that balancing in a way that isnt always the case with fcc proceedings. Thanks john. For charter, this is an interesting topic because were on all sides of this. You know when we first looked at this, 500 megahertz we use and it serves millions of customers. The idea that the fcc would do something that would harm a customer was something that obviously not something we could, that we would ever support and so we were looking for a plan that would continue to protect those customers. On the other hand, were also moving into the wireless space. Last year, we launched an m drk no and were also looking at spe spectrum and how 5g could expand our use. So this as many have noted, is key so were on both sides. At first, we were really nervous about the idea of repurposing part of the spectrum, but working with aca and theyre plan, they put a lot of work into showing you can really build reduen dant fiber. Its really expensive, but the proceeds from the auction are going to build this fiber. For a company like charter who wants to like maybe sure our customers are protected and to look at how we can expand fiber into other areas, 5g plus plan all of these pluses are really important to charter. And then the toll lars there, too. Im going to turn to the joint question to phillip and ross m. Ill just start at that simple level. One of the Big Questions is should this be a public auction how its been done since the early 90s r for all kinds of spectrum, low band, high band, or this idea of a private auction endorsed by the fcc. Let me start with a general question. How do you see the pros and cons there then ill have follow ups. Item going to answer your e question with a question. What is the fundamental driver of human prosperity for the past 200 years or so . Markets. They dont exist in a vacuum. They have key characterics that are necessary for them to perform and drive prosperity and technological innovation. You need transparency and competition and the most fundamental bedrock, you need a monetary tran action point o sale to make sure the underlying value of the resource thats changing hands is reflected and this is probably the biggest sort of contention, biggest contrast between the two plans. The plan presented today has the monetary value gien to the ultimate owner of the spectrum. That is u. S. Taxpayers. I believe the figure that was just cited was 30 billion that would go into the treasury devoted to deficit reduction for behalf of taxpayers who own this valuable bit of spectrum. Now the plan floated by the C Band Alliance does not have any sort of guarantee. Theres in buzz phrase. In washington, were used to these phrases of voluntary contribution. What does that mean . I dont think anyone has any idea and the idea of a voluntary contribution is really thrown into doubt the other day when you u tell one of the four Satellite Companies that comprise the C Band Alliance decided to nod out of the this wan ta be cartel. Before, they were making ways because the ceo a few weeks ago said C Band Alliance, they talk about the voluntary contribution, but theres no consensus over whether or not taxpayers are going to be made whole. Unacceptable. And that undermines any sort of b public process. With a public auction, you get the garruarantee that taxpayers will be made whole. Its such an important issue and such a pressing issue for Public Welfare and Public Interests. You see a diverse array of groups getting behind this to make sure taxpayers are made whole. The Protection Alliance and say Public Knowledge and new america foundation, we really do not see eye to eye on too many issues. Maybe like 5 of issues, 11 . We see eye to eye on this because its such a pressing issue that taxpayers resources, valuable sliver of resources are going to be put into the hands if c brkba gets its way into a group, opaquely, not transparent, sell off these resources and have no guarantee of getting those back to taxpayers and look. The stakes could not be higher. We have about 20 billion americans that do not have access to fast and reliable internet and c band delivered properly subject to the proper market based insent iives, that could deliver, be a very important part of 5g policy and strategy. If its delivered opaquely and incentives are skewed, not only will this be caught up in litigation for years to come, it will slow down, roll out to 5g, but it will just totally destroy insecentives down the road for y efficient allocation of spectrum five, ten years down the road so its really important taxpayers are made whole. I think the plan presented today provides a fizable blueprint for that. We need to make sure that incentives are in the right place and c band goes towards 5g deployment to close that Digital Divide. Thank you. So i think there are two issues. You have the legal issue and then theres a policy issue. As the staff is look at this, you should be weighing both of these. Theyre going to interintact wi. Ross got into this a bit. Johns question highlights the fact that the fcc for decades has experienced running auctions, figuring out how to allocate spectrum to its highest and most valued use and as consumers and the public and wireless carriers, everybody has benefitted from that process that we have seen for the last couple of decades. The prooit sale proposal here its unproven and we believe as weve told the fcc its illegal. So even if you were make iing t case, even if the providers were trying to make the case about benefits of their proposal, they just simply failed the initial league threshold question so those benefits are not realizable. But there are substantial drawbacks to the cba proposal because of the private sale element that frankly the charter put on the table arent burdened by. So for instance, from a policys perspective, ross mentioned the monetary issue. There are tens of billion of dollars on the table here and they can end up in the hands of Satellite Companies or treasury and congress can use that to address other pressing National Priorities like broad band deployment, closing the Digital Divide, equity issues, afford bability in the broad band space. You would have a president of money to address those issues. Another issue, this is probably important for cca members, there is distortive impacts from allowing a handful of companies who essentially their proposal is to auction this for as much as possible. Without weighing the different benefits the auction is required to think about. Things like competition. How is this Auction Going to get broad band to people who dont have it. That is something that wont be considered through the C Band Alliance proposal. And the last egg piece and ross alluded to this, too, anytime that the fcc or members of Congress Want to find new spectrum to be b reformed becau a new service that needs it or an underutilized swath some place waend neand we need to use efficiently, essentially, the cba proposal says that until youve paid off the existing license holder, you are unable to make a move and do anything that uses that more efficiently. There are substantial drawbacks to the proposal that providers put on the table. The proposal here is not burden burdened by it. Its sound under the Communications Act and i think well probably get into the other benefits later on and covering the slides, but i think this is a key piece to think about as you take this back to your office. Thanks. You know, one thing you said i would just oh, you okay . Your point around precedent and the fcc reallocating spectrum from old use to new ones happens all the time. This idea of how coyou take a service that the only allocation could use more efficiently is a very common activity of the acc and Wireless Bureau. Kind of noting just for that reason separate from the money. Another deep dive topic, this discussion of fiber and the plan talked about the Fiber Deployment part of the 5g plus plan. Let me turn to ross and colleen from the cable perspective. So this idea of using more extensive deploim of fiber to more efficiently take the place of some of the areas where c band is used for satellite, just talk more about how that would work. Your company, your member companies, the ones that do this for a living. You distribute video programming, so how would this fiber replacement work . And just for a second, also comment on you know, and you did talk about a little bit earlier, fiber is used for video programming. This is not a few thing were talking about so say a little bit how we go from today to what your plan is envisioning for this fiber transition part of the plan. Sure. First, the most exciting part from our perspective, the plan and the part thats unique from other plans out there is the Fiber Deployment that would occur. The plan will make an investment of six to seven billion dollars in fiber in a Fiber Network that will be able to be utilized for the transport of video across the country. Inclusive of that is 120,000 fiber route miles in smaller markets and rural areas. This is not just a single strand. This is redundant fiber which means if theres a fiber cut on onehalf, customers in those rural areas will not lose access to the service and it will be paid out of proceeds. T not going to require increases in taxes. This is not going to require a diversion of money from usf to this purpose. This build out is is going to come out of the proceeds from an auction of spectrum thats going to end up being added benefit to rural areas. Youll get the Wireless Services. So for rural carriers that are going to get this, what they will essentially be doing so be decommissioning their existing c band earth stations and be building transport to a data center in a you know, nearby larger mid sized market. At the same time, the programmers will send their signal via fiber to that same point. And theyll have a meet up where the change will happen and the content will be delivered via fiber. Theres nothing revolutionary about this concept. Theres plenty of video delivered today. Cable operators today move video via fiber. Wall street uses fiber to make transactions. A highly reliable means of delivering services. Consumers will see no difference. The difference theyll see is better speeds, the potential more better speeds and other advantages that having that kind of ten gig broad band going into their communities can provide. Anything you want to add . From charters perspective, we are a major fiber company. We use it expensively. We are constantly building on our network. So fiber is a key part of our services. Get iting the video guys to be comfort b wbl the idea of using only fiber was hard because of the redundancy. The problem is cost. Thats why were interested in this plan because this plan is going to provide the proceeds necessary to get fiber out into these rural areas to connect everything. And to build in the redundancy you need to make sure customers can continue to receive video programming without any issues. Weve looked extensively and our experts are comfortable that this is something we can do. Th this idea of the 5g plan h this two birds one stone concept, but then also generating this down payment of additional fiber infrastructure and rural areas. Potentially pretty powerful. So let me throw this down to you now. So from a wireless operator perspective, what would that additional Fiber Deployment moan for your members ability to offer mobile and fixed or steve talked about wireless fiber. What does this mean for your able tility to operate . Not only do wireless carriers need access, but you need to backhaul it. Especially as youre looking at high capacity operations. Fixed wireless deployments, 5g services. These networks exist on a high fiber diet. If its not available, it becomes a choke ability for car to provide customers with services they require, and they demand. So it really is a twofold benefit of this plan. The wireless carriers need access to additional spectrum. These are two of the most fundamental pieces of the equation on how do we get 5g services out. Its a key priority from your bosses and leading members of congress, something we have to do if we want to remain competitive as a country. Okay. Great, now, well go to q and a from the audience in a few minutes. Lets pivot to the last broad piece of the story, the differences between the plans and what the path forward would look like. People are that are following this dont, theres some observation maybe the right approach have a compromise. Maybe we start with a private auction thats fast and gets some spectrum out initially and then you do a public auction with the fcc, a little bit more deliberately, and get the best of both worlds there. Let me start phillip, you want to take maybe the first swing at that question and ill open it up for others. Is that a good idea . Whats maybe some of the hidden traps or might that be a reasonable way for the fcc to split the baby . So i sort of touched on a couple of these pieces but johns questions, im going to tie them together. The fcc chose to try to do a hybrid approach on this. Essentially suggesting a private auction or private sale to start and then a public auction later for the rest of the spectrum. There are two substantial issues. The first one is simply the Legal Authority piece. The fcc, we believe, doesnt have the Legal Authority under its Auction Authority to authorize this private sale. It has the authority as john mentioned to modify licenses. To refarm spectrum. To reorganize bans. It doesnt have the authority to essentially privatize that part of its mandate from congress. The other piece, and i think tim touched on this a little bit in his the first time he spoke. I think if you allow for a private sale and then you essentially allow for auction of tranches later on, what youre asking for there is for smaller and competitive wireless companies, companies that are Offering Service to areas that might not be served by the sort of big foreign nationwide carriers. Youre asking them to wait, and frankly, consumers have been waiting a long time. Theyve been waiting to get 4g service and 3g service. Youre essentially telling them to get into the back of the cue and the possibility is with the way that these auctions work, the largest carriers would have bites at the apple at the first tranche, the private sale tranche, but then they would be able to come back for those tranches later on. So it might be that smaller competitive providers just never get access to the mid ban spectrum they need. If you live in an area thats economically difficult to serve for a nationwide carrier, it means that you may never get Service Using some of this mid ban spectrum thats essential for 5g. Does that make sense . Yeah. Having multiple carriers be able to have a meaningful opportunity to Access Spectrum is so important. Theres a lot of talk about the race to 5g. Im sure everybody has heard about the race. Thats not a race of one carrier to get on spectrum and deploy where they want to do. Its a team race. The whole country is together in this. And if we dont have multimillion carriers using it, were not winning the race. We really need to look at it from a wholistic perspective of how do you have multiple people building out the services in all areas not just where one or two Companies May feel the right marketplace for them to do so right now. From a c ban user perspective, using a part now and part later is disruption for the existing users. Whats going to have to happen in the fist instance is the satellite customers will have to be repacked and existing or the satellite user will repoint their satellites and install filters. Thats the first 20 0. The next time they want to clear more, there will be another repack and more repoints and filters installed. Thats extremely disruptive. Particularly for small and mediumsized entities who are trying to spend their time deploying fiber, deploying broad band rather than spending it on repointing dishes. It creates an enormous amount of uncertainty. You may may youre okay for 200, but you know theres more re reallocated in the future. Will you get a replacement and be made whole . Youll have to hold back resources you could otherwise spend in the marketplace in order to protect you and provide the guarantees that youll be able to remain in business in the future depending on how the fcc ultimately decides to reallocate the spectrum later. It puts a black cloud of uncertainty over their business for the next decade. And then finally, if you clear the first 200, for instance, and all of that money ends up going to Satellite Companies, its not clear whether clearing another 100 megahertz or so, theres going to be enough money out of the proceeds to make whole everybody that would need to be made whole. So theres an opportunity with the 5g plus plan to deal with this issue all at once. 370 megaherts all at one time. Take all the money from the proceeds and deal with everybody and then we can say were done and everybody can get on with the business of serving their customers. Questions from the audience . Part of it leased and 6 to 7 billion used to build new fiber. Can you break down the 400,000 and 100,000 . Several people used figures. The question about the specifics of the miles of fiber and the dollars associated with it. The specifics of the plan with regard to that piece. Thank you. Ill look this way. The plan what im saying is already in our plan. Were not breaking any news here. What the plan does call is for the transition of all the mvpd industry from satellite to fiber. The total transition cost all inclusive of that is 6 to 7 billion. That includes a number of different components. Including both leasing of acquiring irus, which is a type of lease of fiber as well as new construction. And so because theres in total the plan will rely upon 420,000 fiber route miles, 300,000 of those fiber route miles are already in the ground. Theres no need to spend money to build more fiber. We can use whats there, and its 120,000 fiber route miles that will be needed to be newly constructed, but thats all inclusive of the 6 billion to 7 billion ive discussed. One of you addressed, how does it change the calculation . Do you think that makes your position stronger and the cbas position more complicated . The question was one of the four Satellite Companies announced theyre withdrawing from the alliance formally. The question was any points of view on the panel . Sure. Definitely a very interesting bit of news that drops when they said they did not want to be part of the cba anymore. I think it means a few things. I think no matter what sort of spin you cast on their interpretation, you ascribe to it, it undercuts cbas case. If n that youve had this Satellite Company for at least a few weeks saying casting doubts that was volunteer contribution, and contra ticketing the executive Vice President who promised, who made a commitment toward voluntary contribution. The ceo of utell said theres no sort of agreement on that. So i think that the escalation of that disagreement saying openly we dont want to be a part of that casts even more doubt on the voluntary commitment. By exchange whether taxpayers will be made whole or not. Definitely makes it less likely that if the cba got their way, then taxpayers would be made whole. Its also, i think a validation of economics 101 in that wherever you have a cartel or a consortium or whatever you want to call it, things break down. One Company Wants a private deal and they want to have more resources and they want to get more money than all the other companies. So i think it calls into question and you have to ask the question who will the fcc be dealing with if cba gets its way . How Many Companies and how Many Companies will stay in and how many will go the way the oh company . Ill just add that im pleased to be able to say since weve launched or plan in july weve been able to grow your membership of those that are supportive of the 5g plus plan including folks that filed comments in support whether or not its the ntca or the broad band fiber association. We think well continue to grow our support for a plan we think best positions ourselves for the future. While that might add uncertainty, it doesnt change the merits of the 5g plus plan. We believe were on the sound legal foot. We have the plan that frees up the most spectrum and has the plus benefits of funds going to the treasury to be used as expected. And none of that has changed by any of the structure of the alliance. I have one or two more questions i could add if anybody yeah. Audience is better. Yeah. Go ahead. Are you going to be building two fiber lines separate from each other between connections . And how does that work . Yes. Particularly in discussions with programmers. We understand that its really important that fiber is reduck dant. Theres multiple paths that are gee goeographically diverse. In our discussions and what we plan on submitting later this month is a plan that shows for true diversity that will be able to provide whats called five nines of reliability. Its equivalent to the reliability that the satellite industry provides. Its a very Robust Network that will ensure consumers dont lose access to video programming that they get today. Anybody else . Let me add one that builds on that. Charter, no Cable Company wants to be in the business of disrupting the tv programming their customers get. So just this i mean, this debate about will the video distribution still work . And programmer only companies seem to be a little bit hesitant to go all fiber. How practically do you think you work through the concerns because as you said, i mean, with regard to the video business, youre all really on the same side. Everyone wants the signal to go through. How do you work through that from a practical standpoint . Sure. Thanks. We are on the same side as programmers here. We are we are going to get the call from the customer if that video programming goes out. Were very concerned with making sure that any type of system thats adopt second down one that provides the same type of reliability we have with the c band. When we first talked to programmers about this, our video side about this, there was concerns because usually its just too expensive to get the reliability you need. You get the redundancy you need. This plan provides for that because of the funding. The other thing theyre excited about is fiber has more capacity. As were looking at things. It future proofs our Video Services going forward. Its a benefit of the 5g plus plan. Maybe in the spirit of hitting our timing mark, ill hand it become over to you, vanessa. Thanks. I want to say on behalf of aca connect, and charter, thanks to our great group of panelists, and our moderator and for all of you being here today. Our panelists will stick around for a few minutes. Thanks again. Jim bride well have live coverage of that starting at 3 15 eastern. At 5 30 eastern the role of congress in National Security and foreign affairs. Three representatives will hurd, andy kim, and Alyssa Slotkin of michigan will join the conversation host bid the ncu school of law. You can find the events live on cspan. Org or listen with the radio app. Tonight on the communicators. Texas representative eddie ber niece johnson on increasing the number of women and minorities in technology fields. We want to be in a position to furnish our own brain power. The only way were going to ever be able to do that is to educate women and minorities in stem fields. And that comes in many categories. Weve even coined a phrase more recently called blue collar stem. Where no amount of ph. D. S or graduate degrees might even be necessary to have those skills to be innovative, and to be a good work force. That is producing some of the innovation. Tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan2. The new c pan survey in voting on elections found 60 of americans want to amend the u. S. Constitution and elect by popular vote rather than the electoral college. 38 want to keep the current system. While only a third of republicans support the change, 84 of democrats and nearly twothirds of independents favor the popular vote for president. Americans do not want the to the change the way votes are counted in most states and localities where the person with the most votes wins even if they do not receive the majority of the votes. It still has the support of 61 of americans. Only 37 want to change to a ranked choice system such as the one recently introduced in maine in which voters second choice candidates are taken into account if no candidate gets a majority of the votes. Support for rank choice systems is strongest among independents. But its still under half among that group. You can read the full results on these issues and others such as americans views on voting discrimination and voter fraud at
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.