fcccolorado enjoying wifi. ene championship -- he has championed manyab regulatory ac reforms at hisom time in the fco and helps cut red tape and increased access to communities across the country which i knowi has beens so important during n covid and the ability to work, play, and be entertained remotely. carr is also to focused on expanding america'sne skilled workforce. the tower climberswhat ena and construction crews needed to next generation networks si andgn telehealthed t remotely dp thisro crisis.es for so his initiatives have been health to drive down care costs while improving for outcomes for veterans and not only low-income americans but many americans who have realizel the importance of telehealth today. he hasfc previously served as tg general counsel of the fcc. and before joining the agency hi was litigating cases involving y the first amendment and the communications act. commissioner carr, we're really happy to have you back today. please, get us started on how 2021's getting kicked off at thi commission. >> well, thank you so much for the kind introduction, and thank you of course to aei for givingr me the opportunity to discuss america's leadership in 5g.ainly there are a lot of signs that be types of ating these events again in person. and i certainly would welcome that because whenn i'm speakinge at lengthth into a blank screens i'm doing here today, i often abouer whether people are zoning out or perhaps even sleeping in the virtual audience. now, i don't have to worry aboua that when i give speeches in d e person. i just have to lookep up from t podium, and then i know for sure that people are zoning out and sleeping in the audience. in all seriousness, though, i appreciate the chance to speak here today and offer my take onw a 5g agenda that will extend u.s. leadership. particularly that we'rep. on first day now of switching the clocks and losing an hour of sleep, i hope folks can stay with us through this. 5g i spent a lot of time on the fcc commission working to advance u.s. leadership in 5g, and i think our decisions at the fcc have made a real difference in advancing that goal. indeed, i think securing u.s. leadership in 5g is one of the n great success stories of the past four years.ne now, looking back from where weo stand todayur in 2021, this may seem like a foregone conclusion of course america would lead t way. yet, our success was far from guaranteed. just a few short years ago, we were at serious risk of seedingf u.s. leadership in 5g to our overseas competitors. we were in jeopardy of losing ew the goodpaying jobs and the trillions of dollars in economic growth that come with a first mover advantage. back then, the experts and analysts were not painting a rosy picture of america's 5g future, to put it mildly. a few years ago, deloitte wrote that, quote, the disparity cap between the speed at which china and the u.s. can add network eda infrastructure and capacity bodes well for china's prospecte and the race to 5g. they added that, quote, china and other countries may be to creating a 5g tsunami, making ig near impossible for america to catch up.poised a bit more blunt statement, china is already in a leading role in the development of 5g and is poised to win the race totions. 5g. the facts on the ground certainly supported those dire . predictions. on the infrastructure side, it took too long and cost too muchd for u.s. providers to build the hundreds of thousands of new cell sites needed for 5g. between 2012 and 2016, for we instance, the construction of new cell sites in this country had essentially flat-lined. we were averaging fewer than three new sites a day over that period. in comparison, china had started putting up 460 sites per day. so what was taking us four years to do, china was doing every nine days. on top of that, the excessively higherparts permitting costs in u.s. meant that our carriers were spending nearly three times as much as their counterparts in other parts of the world to u.. generate equivalent network capacity. on the spectrum side, things su weren't much better.rea, the u.s. ranked well behind china, the uk, south korea, japan, germany, and others in spectrum availability.ad we had zero mid-band spectrum for 5g at a point inre. time , other countries had 300 mega o hertz or more.commer on top of all that good news, ut the u.s. had a grand total of zero commercial 5g offerings. this was the state of play just a few short n years ago. but the fcc went to work and put in place a plan to turn things around. some people argued that we needed to be like china to beat china. they said we needed to nationalize the wireless ise s networks orys heavily regulate r way forward. instead, we bet on america's free enterprise system, and we r went with a tried and true w playbook freeinge up more spectrum and 5 modernizing our infrastructure rules.. on the spectrum side, we knew that 5g would be delivered over every spectrum band. so we pursued an all of the above strategy.d wen high band we launched the world's first 5g spectrum option in 2018 and went on to hold w several more, bringing thousand of megahertz of spectrum to market. on low band we completed the transition work needed to free up 600 megahertz in addition to modifying the rules for 800 megahertz and 900 megahert banst the u.s.han started pushing thi, low band spectrum out more thane a decadehi ago. on mid-band, though, the u.s. had very clearly fallen behind. and in 2017, when leadership changed at the fcc, the agency had no mid-band spectrum in the pipeline. we leg work to correct this mistake, and that effort paid off.f we held the first auction of to mid-band spectrum in 2020 with 70 megahertz worth of spectrum in the 3.5 gigahert band. we transformed the rules governing nearly 200 megahertz worth of this mid-band spectrum to support 5g and teed up over 100 megahertz for auction. at 4.9 giga derts we modernizedo a swath of spectrum.ertz in the l band we auctioned 30 io megahertz -- we authorized 30 megahertz a spectrum for 5g andt iot. a and we opened up 45 megahertz for unlicensed. plus, wethe pushed out an additional 1,200 megahertz of unlicensed in the 6 gigahert band. and weid cleared 280 megahertz this sought after mid-band tha spectrum. all told, our spectrum efforts g over the past four years opened up more than 6 gigahertz of spectrum for licensed 5g censed services in addition to of thousands of megahertz of not unlicensed spectrum. these were not all walks in ther park. in many cases, these were on spectrum bands that prior fccs took a pass on not because the bands were unsuited for nextgenh wireless services but because moving forward meant taking political heat for doing the right thing. thankfully the fcc led by chairman pai took these fights wead on and freed up the spectrum needed w to power america's 5g. in fact, we would still be neutl hundreds of megahertz behind, f stuck in neutral while our ome global counterparts passed us by co we had heeded the calls for e inaction by some in washington r and on the commission. so we need to be clear-eyed about our spectrum spectru poli forward. whether we like it or not, freeing up moreitical spectrum requires fcc leadership thatat accumulatespo political capital and has the willingness to spend it. this is theemust s reality of se policy these days.ai and the fcc must show strong leadership to free up more air waves. this brings me to the second part of the 5g playbook infrastructure. four years ago itture was clear the fcc's infrastructure rules t needed an update. when chairman pai tapped me to c lead the fcc's infrastructure reforms, we moved quickly to modernize the agency's approach and cut billions of dollars worth of red tape. we updated the environmental an historic preservation rules that needlessly drove up costs and g slowed down the time line for nd adding small cells. we put in place guardrails to sm address outlierli fees and delay imposed at the state and local level. we streamlined the process for swapping out utility poles to c- add wireless equipment. we created an expedited approvax process for tower builds during covid-19. wewe accelerated 5g upgrade order that clarified section 6409. and we paved the way for more resilient and capable cell siteo by streamlining the local approval process for modifying sites that already exist. like our spectrum decisions, these actions generated their fair share of pushback even at the fcc. in fact, nearly every one of ouo infrastructure decisions included calls from some of my i colleagues for the agency to fcs slow down or to stop entirely. i'm glad we didn't because the fcc's reforms delivered results they allowed our private sectors to bring thousands of families c across the digital divide to keep americans connected duringu the pandemic, and w to outperfoc those dire predictions from a 2016. ifw i know you want to see the data to back up these claims. well, get ready because i'm ealy about to hit you with a lot of d it. if you're one of those podcast listeners, this might be the time that you really wished this speech had one of those 2x speed buttons on the audio. so, here it is. infrastructure builds . accelerated at a record pace over the last four years. wit in 2016, u.s. providers built just 708 new cell sites. in 2019 with our streamlined tt framework in place, they built i overtt 46,000. that's a 65-fold increase. in the written version you'll see that that sentence has an exclamation point at the end. telecom crews also set records s for new, high-speed fiber builda adding over 450,000 route miles in 2019 alone, which represents a nearly 70% increase over 2016. those new builds are paying off for the american consumer. internet speeds in the u.s. have more than tripled over the last fourur years. far outpacing the increases seen in other countries. in indeed the u.s. leapfrogged ahead of 20 countries on the global mobile speed rankings over thatt same period of time.i competition has increased too with the percentage of americans 20th more than two options for high-speed service jumping by a 52% between 2016 and 2018 alone. prices are down, and digital divide has been cut nearly in half since 2016. pro on top of this, we flipped the script on 5g.mercia americans should be proud that we now have the world's leading. 5g platform. the very first commercial 5g service inye thear world launch in the u.s. in 2018. by the end of that year the fiu private sector had extended 5g to 14 communities.toda halfway throughy 2019, that figure expanded to more than 30. today, 5g networks cover over 270 million americans. and not just in. places like manhattan or san francisco but in sioux falls, south dakota. in peach tree corners, georgia. and at least one provider has committed to extending 5g to 99% of the u.s. population. well ahead of experts' predictions. i'm proud of the results our 5g reforms helped deliver.e and now is 5g the time to buildo these successes, to move 5g in forward. so here's a road map for doing just that. and for those that have been patiently waiting for somethinge new in these remarks, now would be the time to perk up or wake nowas the case may be. first up is spectrum. l with all the work we've been doing over the past four years, we now have a lot of spectrum in the pipeline. the key is to make sure we get those air waves out into the commercial marketplace as tay quickly as possible.t so i'm offering up a spectrum calendar to makeke sure we stayn track. i even filled it in. so here's what i propose. in 2021, we should take all of , the following actions. 3.45 gigahertz, hold auction 110 for the 100 meg hertz of spectrum in th 3.45 gigahert band as required by congress at power levels that will support 5g builds. the good news is that we shouldo be voting later this week on anl order that would do just that. so i am almost ready to even gie give us art checkmark on this o. we'll see. 2.5 gigahertz. hold an auction this year for -- hold auction 108 this year for the 100 meg hertz of spectrum io the 2.5 gigahert band. this needs to get to market asap. la ve already put the leg work in to get this across the finisr line later this year by releasing a comment pn in january. 6 gigahertz. we should adopt an order this year that permits very low power devices to operate in the 6 gigahert band at 14 dbm. this is a key step to promote 5k in this country because it would help power the ar, vr, and othe applications that i think are s going to drive consumer demand for 5g and for 5g devices. align we have a pending further notice that would allow us to go right to an order on this, and doing so wouldld align the u.s. with e approach taken internationally including in brazil.his b in 6 gigahertz we should also n allow client-to-client devices to communicate with each other in this ban. this is an issue that we soughtd comment on in a january 2021 iv publice use notice.trum. it would increase efficiency and enable even more innovative usee of this spectrum.for 3.5 gigahertz.cv we should seek comment this year on increasing power levels for r cbrs operations in the 3.5 gigahert band. updating theer powernation leve would help align the u.s. band . plan with international standards and create efficiencies for mid-band, 5g ar build intz the u.s. that could span from 3.45 gigahertz to c-band spectrum ranges. c weoo federal should take the re experience that we're gaining e right now with cbrs builds and coordinate with federal users as we look at increasing power levels here.eric and gettingan this done will he extend thene reach of 5g servicu to even more americans. next up, you need 2c.t 5470 to 5725 meg hertz. so stay with me on this. this may sound like it comes out of left field even for a lot of the spectrum geeks out2 there. we should start a proceeding ta look at updating the rules that apply to the 2c band. this creates a large 255 meg dortz-wide swath of unlicensed spectrum that is vastly underutilized today. g indeed equipment manufacturers don't even bother including this band in many 5 gigahert wifi ae devices. this is because we have costly and cumbersome technical restraints on the band that are designed to protect federal he incumbents. we should examine whether advances in technology would s a allow us to continue to protects those federal users but do so with a mechanism that's a lot more efficient than the status quo that could create more devie opportunities for unlicensed use of this ban and hopefully actually get it into consumer devices. finally, we should work this year with congress to ensure ei baat it reauthorizes the fcc's spectrum authority, which nd shl expires, spectrum auction authority which expires for most bans at the end of fiscal year h 2022. we can and should get all of n that done in 2021. in doing so, would match the pace we have been moving on spectrum at the fcc over the last couple of years. then in 2022, here's what should be at the top of our list.2022 1,300 to 1350 megahertz. we should hold an auction in isw 2022 foras f the 50 megahertz ot spectrum. this spectrum was first identified as a target for clearing all the way back in 2015. and just last year the fcc bega working with ntia on a plan that would enable the current federal incumbents to vacate the ban foh auction as soon as next year. millimeter wave.e in '22 we should hold another auction of millimeter wave spectrum. and the 42 gigahert ban looks to be one of the prime candidates for action next year. after 2022, there will be more spectrum bans that we can get across the finish line.ith first up there is lower 3 gigahertz. addi working with provi federal stakeholders to create additional opportunities for commercial providers below the f 3.45 gigahert band. the fcc is already relocated most ofth the secondary nonfede users out of the ban to facilitate thiss move.r than momentum is building towards oi making more 5g availablen in thf ban sooner rather than later thanks to lessons learned during the ambit initiative that we n worked on in the last couple of years. there are challenges that ough remain, given the presence of or someward high-power systems in r band, but we're well positioned to work through those issues tra this year and moveft forward wi an auction of lower gigahert spectrum after 2022. next up, 4.8 gigahertz. particu we should auction spectrum in aa this band after 2022. this is particularly important m from an international f perspective because a number of countries have moved ahead of us by licensing this spectrum ahed exclusively for 5g. your national perspective because a number of countries have movede the ahead of us by licensing this spectrum ope exclusively for 5g. while there are many federal point to point systems in the band, we have time to open thiso band up for 5g in the next couple of years. dir next up, 7.25 to 8.4 gigahertz.s following the 2018 directive, federal agencies have been collecting information about theirl leg w operations in this that are report due back to ntia. with somee additional leg work ban this year and next, we will be well positioned to reallocate a portions of this band for n t commercial 5 operations. the good news is we have plenty of spectrum in the pipeline.his it's on us at the fcc to make sure we stick to this schedule and get this spectrum to market. of course, we will need to pairy those air waves with more actios on the infrastructure front. so here are my thoughts on an he agenda that would extend s the significant infrastructure gains we made over the last four years and we'll match the speed with which we've been moving.ext first, we need to get our broadband maps done this fall, n not t next year. congress provided the fcc with $98 million to create more fun accurate and granular maps. di getting those maps done is the key to unlocking the funding that'll be needed to close the o digital divide. indeed, we can't start the 5g fund for rural america, fcc hoe initiatives that will extendho high-speed infrastructure to ac unserved households until we get those new maps completed. if we need to allocate more effort,resources to this then we should do it. speed matters. so here's one idea. let's build off of the tech playbook and iterate.rist rather thanles building maps th have all the bells and whistles that various groups might want, let's start with a targeted or t 1.0 map. to these targeted maps should focus narrowly on the data we need ton move forward with the phase 2 and the 5g fund auction. we can then add to these maps over time. proce with targeted maps out by the end of the year, the fcc can then proceed with the 5g fund. and i think we should begin that auction in early 2022. doing so will ensure that rurald america gets the full benefits e of 5g. and if 5g continues to extend across remotege communities, wef need to make it easier to build infrastructure on federal lands. getting approval from federal agencies has long been an commun impediment toit reaching rural f communities. in fact, wee oftenen hold state and local governments to tighter hod timelines than the federal government itself. now that needs to end. so here's one thing we can do.wl we should designate a team within the fcc, a federal lands desk, if you will, that will aco as a lead coordinator with other agencies on these issues. having a single point of contact for addressing permitting delays that still plague builds across federal lands could help break n at least someitie of the log jad and make a difference for rurale communities. we also need toto keep pace with our meat and potatoes infrastructure reforms. attac for instance, let's make sure that the fcc's cost sharing inb rules forit pole attachments la aren'trly i inhibiting internetp builds, particularly in unserved areas. we've had a petition in front ot us on this, this pole replacement issue since july 2020. and i have it on pretty good authority that it wouldn't take much additional work or new goi. drafting to circulate a noticg of proposed rulemaking that would get this reform going. to complete america's 5g builds we also need to nearly double the number of tower techs and telecom crews working in this at country. doing so will not just of g orkg accelerate internet builds, it will also create thousands of good-payingg jobs. i've been working and engaging directly with a number of trade schools on this effort.caro we've already seen tower tech rr training programs launched in pt south carolina,o south dakota, north dakota, and oklahoma. earlier this month i was in at mississippi to work on standing, up another tower training ative program there. so as we move forward at the ac, federal level, whether through legislative effortss like the bipartisan telecom-skilled workforce act, we should do so k mindful of w opportunities to p expand the 5g workforce. finally, i think we can all agree i need to wrap this up soon.past we need t to firmly reject the e chewed-over ideas of the past y. that would only turn back the clock on the progress we've made over the past four years. from regulations that would reduce private sector investment and infrastructure and prevent families fromth getting the bes most affordable internet services should be a nonstartert that means we must resist the odd yet emerging calls for the d government to subsidize overbuilding. this wasteful and unnecessary k spending jeopardizes the operations of businesses that risk their capital to serve local communities. indeed, existing providers will be less likely to invest in new networks and upgrade existing n networks if they're faced with the possibility of a government subsidized new entrant. we should also see the push forr return to title ii net neutrality for what it is. a push for rate regulation. r those backing this misguided d n policy simply refuse to accept d the reality that the internet p hasee flourished since we repead the ill-advised title ii regulation. speeds and investments are up. prices are down. competitionn has increased, and the resiliency of our networks e are unmatched throughout the ndc world. indeed, covid-19 was the ultimate stress test for global telecom policy. with the pandemic, every aspect of our lives shifted online in an instant. throughout all of this, s del america's networks fared exceptionally well. our advanced networks deliveredv high-quality service despite elevated traffic levels, while inr friends in other advanced economies weren't soce fortunat. their networks, burdened by alld the incentives and disincentive created by heavy-handed in e regulations, strained to maintain quality and speed. in europe, eu officials asked i netflix and other streaming platforms to significantly breai reduce theirng video quality to prevent the continent's network from breaking. australia made a similar request. yet our networks showed no significant reduction in speed e or increase in latency.nt in fact, u.s. wireless networks saw speed increases despite significant jump and data usage. by contrast, china saw up to 40% reductions in download speeds in countries all across europe in, and asia experienced significant declines. in the end, our light-touch approach prevailed.ards there is simply no justification for taking the u.s. telecom o policy backwards to a point in time where our global leadershi5 tooked to be in retreat. we need to keep moving forward.r the 5g agenda i've laid out today would allow us to do juste that. so thank you jen to s shane and aei for the opportunity to speak with you today. u mondok forward for the chance to take some of your questions, thanks. >> thank you so much, aughter] commissioner, wow. anybody who got up today really got all their homework done. a that was a lot. main thing is the asset reallocation. i think that you guys have done such a fabulous job and took on a lot of difficult things that people weren't willing to do ci earlier in previous fccnus. and i hope that you're planning on continuing that. b it sounds that way. let's actually start with broadband mapping.ho because you brought that up, and it's confusing to somebody who somewhat of an outlier, deals e with a lot of technical things. do you think this is something we would have one metric and ta we'd have a complete understanding on where we're headed on this? but itongres seems between the multiple programs that congress, you know, tethers you guys with, which is great because it comes along with funding, as well as the things that are going on over at the department of agriculture. and i know ntai's been asked to put kind of an asset map together. but every time i go to look for this, i happen to be in colorado. where are the assets here, who's getting funding. there doesn't seem to be one actual consensus document that i can go to. are you guys building that at the fcc, or what's going on? >> there's been efforts over the years sort of starts to try to consolidate the approach to i think attaching or using ry existing assets, whether it's federal building or federal lands. they've tried to go to sort -- a think the initiative last year r was sort of a one government one permitting process approach. we've never really been able to get that across the finish line. there's a couple other issues p here. obviously federal lands is one. that's a little bit separate. i talk there about standing up a federal lands desk at the fcc.h the reality is there's not a ton that we have authority to do with respect to federal lands. we've used the bully pulpit, pe we'veople worked with our counterparts. but i think this federal lands s desk idea a would at least give people on the outside a one-stop shop to bring their issues, and we can sort of coordinate out of there. and the third piece is just the broadband maps in general. as i mentioned, the key there is until we get those maps done, we're a bit stalled on moving a forward with phase two, which is going to be aeed very important option, plus, the 5g fund. so i think the key there is thal we need to get our broadband maps done this fall not next year. and congress provided us a lot t of wefunding. i believe it was 98 million to get that job done. so, what i think we need to do is focus very narrowly on we targeted maps, 1.0 maps that would be keyed to just what we need to get our phase 2 and 5g fund going.. if we want to get articulated in terms of different categories on speeds, any other type of information that is going to be important to have in the long run, we should put that on a separate track and just very focus narrowly on these targetes maps to get the 5g fund going. i think that's something that we certainly can get done and thatn we, frankly, need to get done this fall. >> there seems to be conflationd between actual access, you know, who doesn't have access and who actually decides to do adoptions. there seems to be confusion on is it available abili and are wl working on adoption rates, or you're actually in areas that do don't have the abilitypl to gety at the speeds that people -- we're looking forward to those maps, and the sooner the better. going back to your spectrum auction. do you feel like theu've result the c-ban auction have given usl enough? you've given us a whole swath that you guys are restructuring there. but do you anticipate the fcc will need to free up more 5g foe mobile spectrum coming forward?u and you've got a whole year-long plan. or with spect all these differe places you're going to do some asset relocation on the spectrut mapping and use? >> yeah. spect c-band was necessary but not sufficient. again, thehis sort of dearth th we had in this country just a et couple of years ago wasn't fins acceptable. it took ah lot and of work obvi to get c-band across the finisha line. and that's why i think we need to take all of the successes ip ge've hadorta over the last cou years andt move forward. obviously 3.45 is so important.e hopefully we're in a good shape to get that done thisprotec yea. i've obviously called to hold an auction of 2.5. we took the steps la estyear to help enable that. and i think there are stepssigaher we can do in 6 3.5 gigahertz and t beyond. we're in a mk we lot better shan we were a couple years ago. but we certainly don't have the enough mid-band spectrum yet.t. the good newsws is that so mucht that leg work was done. the this spectrum is in the cupboard. there's work that remains. a par but the key now is to just get this spectrum out. and i think putting out a ertain spectrum calendar that says here are the particular bands, here's the order we can move forward ou andld internally we can work -wi towards those goals as well.ou t >> you've mentioned before that you'd like to see a win/win in a the 12 gigahertz. what do you think that looks like? >> the challenge there is a technical one. and if we can get, you know, 5g terrestrial use in 12 and thntinue to get the public interest benefits that come frol these new generation of low earth orbit satellites, then that's great. and that's what s the engineeri at this o momentf is sorting tho through. i'm excited about a lot of what we're seeing from this new generation of low earth orbit e satellites. i think it could bebedigi a reat part of the solution to closing the digital divide, particularly when you look at the most expensive hardest to serve, 1, 2% of the country. the and so i think we need to make sure that we continue to have that technology as a viable ng a solution to close the digital divide. not putting all my eggs in that basket, but i'm hopeful to see what happens. point one is we've got to let out, let the ay engineering play out, see if wet can getel to a win/win from everybody. overarching that is we need to b make sure that these new satellite technologies have a e fair shot of tal d playingiv with what could be a significant role in y closing the digital divide. bro >> so,adba you see that you're b heading towards a balance you think of an emerging satellite , broadband with the massive demand for mid-band spectrum. sr it's been interesting because e obviously engineering's very f important because we want to make sure that everybody's got their fair share there. see but there's also been the challenge of first-mover advantage i think. we've seen on a lot of people p on facebookon spacex because they're linked in areas before.p but we have also other entrants in the space. i know 12 gigahertz is up for that. playing well guysys together? i used to tease people about hio being space fpeople, but now its important. >> we've gone through a couple different generations. a lot of people early on felt ,t like some of the earliest, s earliest satellite builds, it was a whole lot better than nothing.. but the speeds obviously aren't where they are today because we're talking about networks sl that were plannedli and built decades ago. so i think this new generation of satellite obviously can provide much faster speeds, much lower latency. juthink that's a good thing. when i think about sort of 5g in general, not as a technical nr standard but as an umbrella ters for nextgen high-speed connectivity, we're seeing some really great benefits with terrestrial fixed wireless, nvei obviously mobile ngspeeds, satellite. i think all of these technologies coming and converging together, broadcast internet as well because i think that's sort of the 5g piece fort broadcasters where they canec participate in this converge market. i think it's great.play and i want opportunities for ali of those technologies to play together. and in 12 in particular it's going to come down to t some engineering work that is to be played out on the record. >> you also mentioned 6 gigahertz. i know that's a big swath for iot applications. i have six devices by me right here. i know the 6 gigahertz tha proceedings allow companies to move forward with very low-power devices. and there have been some engineering questions around that as well. c is that something that you think will getanrwar smoothed outd t ? >> yeah. i hopela we can move forward th year. that's what i put out there. we had a lot of really good winl in 6 gigahertz the last couple of years. opening up the 1,200 megahertz.y we left one piece there that needed more record development. and frankly doing i think we're at this point from my s perspective. authorizing ical avlp and doingd 14 dbm, it sounds technical, and it's sortt of hard to describe n a nonnerdy way.e but the way i picture it for at people is b i think ar/vr is gog to be an important vertical fora 5gnd adoption. c basically like if you want those really cool ar/vr glasses and le things that aren't big and clunky like it is today, getting vlp going in 6 gigahertz is going to be that key connection to that ar/vr glasses where you're not going to need a tail coming off of it and limiting you. there are so many cool things cery that can happen in this space. even stuff as basic as grocery n shopping, which in the pandemic has taken on a whole other sorto of challenge for a lot of people. but you can put these what ar/v glasses onon really at this poi what i'm talking about, and you can be sort of transported to your own grocery store. you can be walking down the aisle. you can pick stuff up with portn haptics and feelit a piece of fruit, throw it in your basket. there's all kinds of interesting opportunities that can come wit. ar/vr. th i think solving this vlp 5g piece is part of unlocking it. that's going to drive demand for new 5g devices, which will comm benefit the whole ecosystem. so i'm really excited about it. i think the work we've done over the last year, seeking further e comment on this, allows us to move forward this year. and i think that would be a really good win. >> i hope there's more entertaining things to do than go grocery shopping. [ laughter ] but it's a city good start. so moving over to jobs.n you mentioned you were just recently in mississippi. and i understand that their community college down there is working on a program that trains tower technicians. so tell us a little more about s that. >> i'm excited about this. the 5g jobs aspect is so elecom interesting to me. obviously, one, we need more lt telecom crews to complete 5g te builds. i've spent a lotomen of time ouo of d.c. in this job, and not with just tower techs but the women and men that are pulling e fiber, splicing fiber. and they tell me that they want to double the crews that they have. they're having to turn down word because they don't have enough trained sort of telecom techs.ft there's a lot of different waysl into this you can go through there's sort of third-party erk companies that will train people up. there's companies that are training in-house, a erickson, r instance, had a facility that in visited in louisville, texas, where they're training their own tower climbers. i focusbeca on theuse in commun colleges as one piece of getting more people into this field because you can go in with eigho to 12 weeks with basically no skills. and the community colleges, it's then opened up to different e so scholarship opportunities, you know, funding y that you get frs military service. so you can leverage some of those opportunities to pay for it. and after eight to 12 weeks, you are immediately making 50 to 60,000 with just eight weeks' training. and tower p techseo very quickls make six w figures. a lot of these people go on to . then start their own businesses as well. c so it's not just a job for the moment. it really is a career. so i think we need to do more to help support that. some of it can be at the department of labor in terms ofe their apprenticeship programs. but i think as we sort of look at this we need to keep that onf the radar.e i we've made progress on the h community college front. we've stood up a number of theme toere's a couple more that i'm working directly with.f but it's sort of just one piece of how do we create more om opportunities to get into sort of the telecom tech space.sh in >> so, talking about equipment,g how iset oran going? the i know there was a big push in e the last two or three to try to find a way to get around some of the china challenges. abl and part of that is to have morr partners in the space and have them be able to have a set of o network that is very interoperable. what's your perspective? >> i think we're pretty excited about the opportunities for oran. depending on which headlines you read and which companies are if getting -- either it's oran is . going to solve everything or oran is a bit premature at the moment. we'll see how some of that plays out in the marketplace. what i'm excited is, one, it bee gives america's w companies a chance to compete in the infrastructure space where ou before when you have basically, you know, expensive pieces of w hardware you need billions and billions of dollars of r&d to get into that space and compete. but now when we sort of separat. the hardware from the software as oran does, then you're ly goo competing on software. termthat's easierer tosp compet. a lot of u.s. companies are really good in the software thk space. so i think it's good int terms f leveling the playing field for t competition. beca a lot more us network security as well, in e part, because you have a lot r more options for the network year. it's going to be a more efficient build in the long runm so that should help drive down cost as well.ines i think it's interesting and it's interesting from my perspective, you know, to watch the different headlines on it play out. o because some ofn the incumbent r equipment vendors are definitelw situated on oran, whether it's r good for themtive in the short t or long run. so i think we're doing the right thing at the fcc which is being supportive of the trend, doing stuff that help accelerate it and letting the private sector figure it out from there. >> yeah. o in's one of those -- you hope it works, it seems like it's got a lot of potential there. the other thing on 5g is the yu interagency process. i know there's a lotere of peo that are interested in this at s different cur relayers. is there an interagency lead in this current administration that's working on 5g??when >> well, if you step back, whena the rubber meets the road when it comes to dealing with federal incumbents, as i talked about in my speech, whether we like it oa not, that requires fcc all leadership that's going to t, a accumulate political capital ane be willing to spend it., and t we can enter into all the mous we want. when and we have and we should. we'll continue to do so.o and those high-level engagements are great. but as we've seen when it gets t very closeru to actually, you know, flipping the switch and freeing up spectrum, whether we see it in the lban, you know, not necessarily federal user side but with cban and other incumbents, with 5.9 gigahertz . and d.o.t., there is a lot of reticence when thehe rubber meee the road. and that's where i think you'veu got to really bedi able to push through. our lens at the fcc is obviousle we want every a user including federal users to be successful.n but we got to sort of make the l tough calls that's going to put this spectrum to highest and best use while ensuring that out federal partners continue to carry out their missions. know, again, of there's more that we can alwayst do on coordinating and discussing. but at thelengin end of the daye are challenging tough fights. if you look at the last four years the spectrum bans that we move forward in many cases, whether it was 5.9 or logato, those weren't sort of new ideasi that came up inr h the last two years. a these were ideas that every time an fcc chair passed the gavel tc another fcc chair, they pass both the gavel and the loeg atto proceedings. why was there so much headline acrimony between the fcccc and s federal agencies the last four years? and i'd say because we didn't foss the buck. we did the right thing, which was to move forward with 24, 28 gigahertz spectrum, move forware with 5.9, move forward with avd logato. in my mind thosehe are just unquestionably the right calls. could we have avoided the illove headline disputes and said,r cd look, we're just like every other fcc. we didn't have headline level spillover in our negotiations. yeah, we could have. you wouldn't have had the millimeter wave, 5.9, or logato. if you really want good spectrut policy in terms of delivering results, you know, sometimes you're going to catch some headlines and some pushbacks. wr a lot of that we keep in house, we work through the process, wes work through irak. but there's going to be a need . to make some tough calls.n a and that is going to continue tt be the case going forward. so, to your point, yeah, i hope we end up in a position with the right leadership to push forwarl onwa this..i >> it's very alw important. we've seen the department of defense has always ongoing issues. i always feel like they're comme hiding a lot ofnt spectrum and they just don't want to share. o [ laughter ] and the department of transportation. and that goes back to sort of e the earlier comments you were an making about spectrum.reallo and just the whole idea that we to look at it as an asset that a can be llenreallocated as we lea more things through engineering and the ability of technology. i think that we've been changed as we've gone back and looked at especially the department of transportation thee age of what the information flow is.noaa. so many things have come online since 2005. we also saw that last year with noaa. are we done fighting about weatherfe with spectrum? or is noaa happy now? t >> when you push back away from federalba users, it's never a dd issue, it's only a zombie issue. just this week i think "politico" reported that there was a group trying to push the biden administration to get thes fcc to i unwind our decision in 5.9 gigahertz. that would be a monumental we md mistake. this is spectrum that has been underutilized, to put it lightl. for decades now.ack and we made the right call frome my perspective, there's no going back. and i would hope that there's a consensus at the fcc with that position. nationalizing wireless. we push backy constantly on thi, particularly in the last ime administration. and it t kindhat of was only mo dead for a lot of that time. but hopefully that's dead, o hopefully we can move beyond 5.a as well and not relitigate that, one. >> how are we doing on spectrum?nty- i know it's ath year for whatever -- there's always m something --as >> p os23. of w >> okay. and where we try to harmonize as much as possible which goes back ton part of our, what's going o with with oran. h we have some things on deck there, are we happy with our international colleagues and how things are moving forward?ocesss do you expect to see success?i >> the teams that work on the work processes, they're always really talented.ti i'm always atioimpressed with h much they get done. they do these around-the-clock negotiations when we're actually in the couple weeks of work.. trying tolo stop saying work, thg efforts, leg work leading up to it. in but a lot of the bands that i mentioned are ones that were ubc teed up in the last work final report. having this public record of where i think the fcc needs i to go that lines up with the efforts going on and work 23 i i think is ate good thing.s >> you mentioned one of my least favorite phrases which i hope we can banish soon, which is net u. neutrality. ther my least ofy not favorite -- at least not acronym, i guess i would say. a there was one at the fcc that wt used to use called ebarf. i think it was like electronic bureau approval request form.re >>. you guys -- i almost think p you need an acronym generator over there. >> oh, we'vee>> t got one. that's how we come up with this stuff.2012 a nd having tim wu non the white house and concerns about are we diving back and looking at come part of it as ever understood really the challenge they put forward because it don't think we've had the part of it is i never really hat understood the challenge they put forward because i don't think we've had the problems that is brought forward in net h neutrality. we throttling was never an issue. we always need paid sing a prioritization at a certain level, especially with 5g. with network suppliesing and networks that is no longer a t problem. i'm not we're quite sure why we rehashing some concerns from a decade ago. has do you think we're ready to move on, going to go back to that battle? >> you know, there's a lot that has changed in the short time, m relatively short time since we last went down or maybe first onnt down this misguided title ii pathe in 2015 and 2016 to yor point, we're now sort of in 5g and all the use applications that come from 5g, title ii netp neutrality that don't seem to bc consistent with very much pro-consumer competitive 5g applications. i do have some concern, among ou other things, if you go back 'se diff that path. you could cast doubt over a lot of beneficial 5g use cases. that's one thing that's ng on different. i think also the dynamics, t politically, and technically in terms of what's going on in the networks is very different e grt today.e this idea of 2015, 2016, when people pitched this idea that the greatest threat to a free and open internet is the mom anf pop ore,isp in iowa and, theref needs the heaviest of , the heavy-handed regulations in the form of title ii to keep a free and open internet. flash forward to thetoday. the choke points are in a very different position.lication it's not just when you look at the edge of the network and social media applications and even starting to move down the stack. and you see, you know infrastructure providers, aws, cloud flare that are or have taken action to, you know, prevent sort of the free flow oy information. so is w think the dynamics now trying to say isps, which in the absence of title ii have not heh been engaginger the type of conduct that people say requires title ii.rovide on the other hand, you've got 'a these other infrastructure to t providers that are engaging in that type of conduct.heavy-ha i think it's a very different scenario to try to move forwardy with, you know, a heavy handed isp only approach. so, my view is, what we're doing is undeniably working.ch covid-19 was the ultimate stresu test. the progress we made with our light touch approach brought rn, thousands of families across the digital divide before covid hit. so they had access to the internet. those people on the internet o s a far better experience than our international counterparts in terms of speed and performance t because of our approach in nstac network regulation.e, f we'reramewo seeing providers dos their counterparts in europe, ay for instance, because of our framework. what we're doing is working and to somehow turn around and say, ine need to single out isps based on concerns of things that, in fact, are going on in h other m parts of the infrastructure or the edge is a much more difficult argument both to make but also to sustain on appeal in terms of an arbitrary nature. i think there's things that are very different today than they were when this happened in 2015k including the supreme court.ay which in my view would look the potentially very skeptically more so today than ever on this type of approach. there's also the issue of what i call the privacy donut hole. congressif passed the cra on th fcc's privacy rules in 2017. 1 if you were to reclass it under title ii, that divests the fcc of its authority under the private practice of isps.. because of the privacy ira that, donut hole is unfillable. we do not have the authority to put privacy rules in place.t's a that'sls not just a practical public policy problem, i think it's also a legal problem in terms of an arbitrary decision, or a decision that would have very significant apa problems to say, yeah, you know, we i eliminated privacy rules that apply to isps, yet we don't have a way to fill it in. so be it. i think that's a tough position to be in. i there's a lot that's different w about 2015, 2016. again sort of the sky is falling predictions that we saw the s wo opposite happen. speeds are up. h competition is up. the digital divide is isis c w closing. plus who and where in some of tv conduct -- who is engaging some of this conduct and where in the network. the edge, the privacy stuff. so, simply quote, unquote, b returning to title ii regulations of the fcc is quite. the briar patch. it will not be an easy walk forward. of course, it could be the wrong path forward.me to q there's also the issue of quote neutrality rules.s. rules of the road are ones i'm comfortable with. i have no problem moving forward with net neutrality. this past week about looking at it as a stack. there's a lot to be said for an' that. ofat alson a l brings in just t idea of content, as i know ea of there's been n a lot of confusii around section 230. there's a lot of issues since the idea of net neutrality. you need responsibility at ever level.resp the questiononsi is at what leg, responsibility and 230 is one d that i know has had a lot of cic confusion. i'm looking at a note. there was a letter sent last week. this just surprised me, from the contents anna eshew specifically to the t cable companies to be a content curator which seemed awkward tod me. this cable, satellite and over-the-top companies disseminating media outlets have done nothing to respond to misinformation by these out illg lets. i thought that was trans angr o interesting group to call out. you noted this idea had a thilling transgression on every free speechou that the media outlet in this country enjoys.>e just any further thoughts on that? >> yeah.mist i thought that the letter to thr cable and other streaming providers was a mistake. my position is really simple. l i want more speech, not less. having the government on official, congressional hical letterhead, writing to news is aets, asking them what is the moral and ethical principles that guide your coverage really is a chilling transgression of free speech and not one we should be going down. i think it's mistake. the challenge stepping back for the country is more of a mltural one. thod you look back, the very fit modern day op-ed launched in 1970 on the pages of "the new york times." the reason was theve and editors e wanted perspectives that were very different from the perspectives, arguments that wew made by the ed board or staff . writers of "the new york times." the idea they said was diversity of use is the lifeblood of democracy. that was "the new york times" when they were opening up their pages to a diversity of views. flash forward to today. i think we're sort of views i hn the opposite direction where diversity of views is no longere looked at as a strength, as t vital to democracy. that's dangerous.hat we see this trend of legislating by letterhead. congress can't pass a law that would force a streaming an provider, you know, to s discriminate against one of these news outlets but can writt a poignant letter and help bycotts?dad a thumb on the scale in favor oh censorship. andnd the entire trend to less e speech, more censorship.aunch you've got journalists and others who are pushing back, saying we don't want people to be able to speak andnd launch reo theirrg own news outlets througl sub stack.etch of t we need to reorient as a countrs toward the idea that, agree or thsagree, let's get more speech out there. at the end of the day, the ideae that we embrace, whether it's one side of that debate or the n other, will be better ideas, stronger ideas, more innovative ideas if we hash all this out through public debate. and so in some ways that letter that weeing saw was indicative, think, of a broader trend of free speech being in retreat.grb it comes to every institution t stand up and say i agree or don't agree, but at least let'ss have this debate. but i think we've got work to do in this country to get back to where we were in the 1970s at least with this embrace of diversity of views. >> thanks, that's helpful. couple of questions from the audience. we've got about three minutes left. this has been so ps informative g this morning.ov what steps has the fcc taken tom reduceai barriers to infrastructure deployment to state and local governments thuc far?r? mo there any significant d challenges that remain in this area? pl lotac of steps in this direction. most notably was a decision we issued that put guardrails in place on the fees thatrural stad local governments charge and timelines for action. particularly in rural communities, the capital to usew build up next generation b networks was flowing slowly, ifc at all, in part because we had e million dollar fees being charged in some of the largest cities in the country, manhattan or san jose. we stepped in with guardrails there. since that decision, we've seenm infrastructure bills acceleratee including in rural areas.o e i think that's good news. there's more to do. we're hesitant at the fcc
Related Keywords
New York , United States , Georgia , Australia , Japan , Texas , Washington , Brazil , China , Togo , Mississippi , San Francisco , California , Germany , Sioux Falls , South Dakota , Oklahoma , Iraq , Iowa , North Dakota , South Korea , Americans , America , Irak , American , Carr Brendan , Meg Hertz , Tim Wu ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.