Bombing grozny because you use air power in kosovo. You cant talk about jailing Political Prisoners because you have guantanamo. You cannot talk about press freedom because george bush fired dan rather, right . That is exactly what he said to him once. In 2005, he said, george bush, you fire dan rather so you can talk to me about that. If you go out there and say that, americans dont really understand you. That is the way putin side. Having said that, he certainly has a point to make, which is to say that they United States has avoided at times the u. N. Or other ratifying types of structures for issues like the proposed strike on syria. I was with the president in st. Petersburg when he was trying to get more support out of the g20 and didnt really get what he would have liked out of that because there was great ambivalence in the international community, as there was anemic in public, by the way, and as there was obviously in the oval office. Obama himself didnt want to do what he said he was going to do. The oped was a nice little jab on the part of the russian president and i think he got what he wanted out of it. Im is particularly amused by the part that he says that america should think it is very exceptional, this whole notion of exceptionalism. But it did have a telling passage. It asserted that the assad regime had no chemical weapons. Seemsht, which days later to be the opposite of what his point is. Lets go get them together. I will let you say whatever you want to say. He gets to some of the points that peter was saying before, t some of the previous have complained that some of the facts get melded or molded. You have been right there at the forefront in the postsoviet country, like at the beginning of the [indiscernible] you have had some pleasant experiences. Im thinking of your time in negotiate. Ing to almost the entire i mean in government that shot as you are leaving to the airport. Those were terrible times in and the difficulty of having that u. S. Russia relationship over a rather nasty complex, not just georgia, but others. I wonder if you might have a quick thought on how you think the u. S. Russia relationship has impacted those other relationships. The only life i can never claim to have saved was the life of the armenian foreign minister who was supposed to go with Prime Minister across the street to sell the deal that we had got to the parliament. And i asked of the Prime Minister if i could kidnap the foreign minister and take into my car out to the airport to close a couple of deals. It was because he he was with me that he was not noted down there. Not mowed down there. The russian message seems to be to keep stirring up trouble during trouble. Bolshevikjob in the government was the peoples commissar for nationalities. He had a lot to do with drawing the map and designing the policies, all of which notably including in his homeland ensure that ao lot of these old feuds would continue to simmer. Keep those parts of the country week so that they could be ruled from moscow. And i think that is also their view of the world as a whole. Angela, youyria, emphasized this, but just to conclude on its, there is an ironclad rule of Russian Foreign policy now that is not only never again will they be party to a regime change, whether it , but theya or ukraine will do everything they can to thwart that. This is a lesson that they didnt just learn in libya. It is a lesson that they learned in the balkans and particularly as a result of the kosovo war. What did the kosovo war and with . And this goes back to the slavofile pint. Point. Unorthodox country in europe had its regime toppled and a subset of that country was a muslim majority population became an independent state. And the russians saw that and they said that could happen here. Today, it is bombing belgrade and free kosovo. Sunday, eight will be bombing moscow and a free chechnya and that is very deeply rooted. I was in Saint Petersburg during the bombings. That was certainly the view of everybody that i spoke to from the ground all the way up. I think it is hard, getting back to all the points we are talking about, not always understanding the perspective to realize that that was a genuine sentiment. Cant resist on peters wonderful point on false analogies. And now it a dinner that we were both at with mr. Putin, we were next to him when a journalist asked him why london was still in the red square. He asked them what country are you from. He said great britain. And he asked why do you still have statues of Oliver Cromwell . [laughter] he has a ready answer for everything. The analogy of cromwell and landon. And then it is explain that cromwell is not involved in the parliament. I want to come back to the question of syria and i think it has been partially answered. You ask what leverage the u. S. Has. Not much. Is absolutelyogy. He antiexample for mr. Putin he said it in so many terms. Russia has always believed that president assad would prevail and it looks at the moment as if he will. A major concern is to have a strong secular government in damascus. Were an islamist government come to power that has implications not only for the region that russia would find dangerous but for russia itself and for its own north caucuses and the other islamic parts of russia. And therefore all of these other issues this is why russia wont agree to a vote in the United NationsSecurity Council but would tie humanitarian relief to sanctions against the syrian government. If they dont allow this humanitarian relief, that could threaten assads rule. And they got they are diehard standing with this view and policy. I dont think they will change it. Frankly, i think russia today views the United States as being in decline and the europeans, too, rightly or wrongly. You can see in what the secretary kerry and what president obama said. Great frustration about how we can get over it is a terrible, horrible situation what is happening in syria with the humanitarian crisis. How do we get beyond that . In geneva, perhaps it could have been predict it in the moment that these talks would not work out and at the moment there is a stalemate. I dont think the United States has very much leverage. Therefore, it is hard to see how you can move forward and get a solution to the needs of the syrian people. That is really what your book is about you it is also a chronicle about leverage over issues where we have had very little. So not just the limits of partnership, but the old limits of our own assets and policy making and outreach that you described so well in the book. Copies ofl sign some the book for those of you who would like to sign them outside. Would like to buy them outside. Have anothere will chance to get together to talk about some of these issues as this year goes on. Im sure that mr. Putin and russia will give us plenty to talk about here at brookings. Angela, i want to wish you every success with the book and thank strobe and here for sitting here so long when the sun is actually shining outside. Thank you. [laughter] [applause] this discussion on u. S. Russia relations happen on a day when violence erupts into yet. A nineted press reports demonstrators have been killed in the violence demonstrations there. Well show you all of this in our Program Schedule and you can see it online at www. Cspan. Org. The house and senate are out this week. Congress is out for the president s day recess and the district work cakey work period starts again next week. This read in part that increasing the minimum wage would have two brits both exxon lowwage workers. Most of them would receive higher pay that would increase their families income. Some of those families would see their income rise above the federal poverty threshold. But some jobs for lowwage workers would probably be eliminated. The income of many workers who became jobless would fall substantially and the share of lowwage workers who are employed would probably fall slightly. That is from the Congressional Budget Office and the report released today. Earlier today, the president continuing to take executive action on policy limitation of policy as he talked about in the state of the union address. He directed his administration to date to develop fuel efficiency standards for medium to heavy duty trucks by march of 2016. He spoke with a safeway Distributions Center just outside the nations capital. But today, we are taking the next step. Fory duty trucks account just 4 of all the vehicles on the highway. I know when you are driving sometimes, it feels like its more. But they are only 4 of all the vehicles. But they are responsible for about 20 of Carbon Pollution in the transportation sector. So trucks like these are responsible for about 20 of our onroad fuel consumption. And because they haul about 70 of all the mystic freight, 70 of the stuff we use, everything from flatscreen tvs to diapers it, every to you name mile that we gain in fuel efficiency is worth thousands of dollars of savings every year. So that is why we are investing in research to get more fuel economy gains. And thanks to a partnership between industry and my administration, the truck behind was able to achieve a 75 improvement in fuel economy over the last year. 75 . Thats why i call this super truck. [laughter] its impressive. This one right here as well. These are first of all, they are really big. [laughter] but you can see how they have redesigned the truck in order for us to save fuel economy. And improving gas mileage for the struts will drive down our oil imports even further. That reduces Carbon Pollution even more. Feel down on businesses costs, which should payoff in lower prices for consumers. It is not just a winwin. It is a winwinwin. All of theshow you president s comments coming up at 5 30 eastern here on cspan. And you can see it anytime at www. Cspan. Org. Some reaction from congress. Said and i have a bill to do it. Commerce is out this week for the president s day recess. Holding events and meeting with constituents. We are tracking twitter. David letter saying they to hear from folks at my townhome meeting. Now heading to arcadia paris. Commerce men ron kind of wisconsin there is more at twitter. Com cspan. Look up members of congress on the list. Our conversation with bob corker on his early career in business. I had started working like most folks when i was 13 doing all kinds of odds and ends. I migrated to being a construction laborer and kind of a rough carpenter. College, iuated from became a Construction Superintendent and after four years, i had built some regional malls around the country and learn how to build objects and saved 8,000. So when i was 25 years old, i went in business. And started doing a lot of petite works, Small Projects where i could be paid quickly. The company grew about 80 a year. The whole time ended up building Shopping Centers around the country, retail projects in 18 states. So it was energizing. To be. A great place i mean, the energy, when you come into the front door, it almost knocked you down. And i sold that when i was 37 to a young man who had worked with me for many, many years. And then of course, ive done several things since i ended up acquiring a good eel in real estate. Throughthe years, portfolios. Many wake i love being in business. With amy we will talk klobuchar about being in the senate and the mother of a teenage daughter. She called me and i picked up the cell phone as i walked into the senate and she is in tears. Mom, they said we couldnt wear a bikini at the pool party, but tankinis. Re and dead doesnt know the difference. I said get him on the phone right now. I think for any mother, it doesnt matter if you are a senator or you are a nurse trying to balance the family and the work, you never do it perfectly. And anyone who says they do are wrong. Bobnterviews with senators corker and Amy Klobuchar starting at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan, cspan radio, and cspan. Org. Week atand all this 8 00, it is book tv programming on prime time. Today, James Carville discussing love and war. Then keith ellison, the first muslim to be elected to congress. Then dan by gino then dan bongino and his career as a secret service agent. It has been 15 years since president bill clinton was acquitted by the senate after being in pitch being impeached by the house. We will look at that impeachment debate at 8 00 p. M. Followed by the senate trial at 11 00. Next up here on cspan, a discussion with federal officials and Telecommunications Executives on the upcoming spectrum reallocation and how it might impact National Security. Last december, tom wheeler spectrum auction until 2015. This is from the center for strategic and international studies. It is an hour and 40 minutes. I would like people to take their seats and we can go ahead and get started. My name is jim lewis. S where we at csi are starting another round of his questions on spectrum policy and Spectrum Management. I didnt realize the other one long ago. Go are we have a great panel. Generalote speaker is Robert Wheeler who will be going through his slides and giving us some information on dods thinking on Spectrum Management and relocation. Thank you for coming out on a day that the news outlets predicted would be unparalleled in snow. In general, would you like to come up . So i do know all the folks on this panel. We are usually yelling at each other. An interesting discussion. I was a little bit late because it takes 10 minutes to get from the pentagon to hear. It took about 46 minutes, to be exact. So that was a little bit of a knighted not expect. An importantis subject for our nation because it really talks to the National Security issue as well as the economic issue. To be frank, those are intertwined. Those are together. Ed is one of the important takeaways, the National Security and Economic Growth and capability of capability and strength of our nation are one. Well need to think about this from that perspective. The other piece that i want to make sure you walk away with is the international flavor. It is hard for people to fully understand sometimes the spectrum plate from a worldwide perspective. While we can make a domestic plan, if i have whirling sublets coming over in that same spectrum that comes from many countries, that will be a problem. At that point, we start to interfere with their satellite and that causes problems for them to help us when we need help overseas for the same factories. So there is a very Strong International flavor, something that does not get heard well. That is a big deal. Here it has become smaller. There is no doubt with the advent of the internet and the way we are connected to gather. It is a much smaller world. That aspect is a very critical part of the spectrum game. There we go. Looks like a very complex slide. Theres something to take away from it and spectrum is a thread that ties all of dod together. The other aspect is come fewer think about this, they got three dimensions. You see the space dimension whirling up a copy of the air dimension, which is the aircraft going back and forth. And the terrestrial. You have three communication layers in that particular part. All of them connect together on voice, video and data. Space, all them way to the air layer, all the way to the terrestrial air, all those connections occur. That is what happens from a dod per spec. I think youre seeing that in the domestic level as well. Stealth armor guy. B2 Stealth Bomber guide. , a laptop that sits between me that has Microsoft Office on it. So i get emails and things of that particular nature at the same time. I have linked 16 showing all the other aircraft and all the other potential threats that are out there on my particular screen. At the same time, i am getting voice. All of that is receiving at the same time. I am receiving data on two separate screens. I am receiving voice, multiple in most cases. And at the same time, i am starting to get the pieces and types andonvoice beeps and squeaks that tell me where the stuff are. That is happening at the same time. If you can enter time intertwined all three of those, that is that slide. Next piece. Ok. You want me to stop touching that hearing is that it . [laughter] ok, there we go. One back. On this particular slide, we are talking about the data. It takes a while to understand it. The top line tells us the traffic growth. It is stabilizing, what we are seeing across the board. , what is clear is that the amount of traffic is growing at a clear 20 . As the device numbers drop off, traffic is still going up at about 820 clip recently year. That means data will be the future. That means spectrum. That is the key. We are growing at a rate that is somewhat stabilizing at this point, but it is clear that more spectrum will be required or more efficient use of spectrum and i will talk to both of those. Right here, we are seeing that the whole commercial broadband piece to it is tied back to Economic Growth. There is no doubt about it. The way i look at it is, can you imagine the thought the possibilities from a business perspective . If you could get data to every rural area of the country, this is about a mac is creativity. It is about americas ability to stay repetitive in the world and keep its edge. That goes from a military perspective across the board. I think we are intertwined and that is my message on that perspective. The president has pushed for a 500 megahertz goal. We are definitely pushing hard towards the 500. The thousand, we understand that perspective. It drives a lot of things. It is driving technology. Moreng technology to be efficient. How do we make it so that we are not a spectrum hauled, whether you are the federal side or the commercial side. It spoke to both the federal aspect of it and the commercial aspects of this. Those are intertwined. Hadley at better across s how do we get better across the board so we use the spectrum that we have more efficiently . That is good for all of us. I love the slide because it talks to what we have to do. Try to weave all the spectrum through. Everything we do has a spectrum impact. Whether it is warfare, talking to a weapon leaving an aircraft, moving stuff from fedex across the country all of this touches spectrum. You add one more piece of spectrum in the, you have to be careful where it touches. You can start to interfere with each other. If you are talking about Missile Defense and you have a specific frequency where, from a commercial aspect, you would go you do not use that very often. And im thinking, thank god i am not using it very often from a missiledefense perspective. But i have to have that frequency. That is a perspective we have to understand. There are some technologies out there with dynamic spectrum. We may be able to use that spectrum with the guarantee that the priority is, when the Missile Defense is needed, it automatically becomes clear. Those are the top of things we are looking at. We were not able to do that in the past. In the past, we would have to on that frequency for life reasons. In the future, we may not have to do that. That is a key use of it. We will see that many other aspects. Right here is what it looks like. How do i get a maximized use of that limited resource. How do i make that happen . Think about satellites today. That thein bands Telecom Industry needs. Those satellites have been up for all most 30 years. 30 years ago, we were not worried about the width of the spectrum, where we were in a particular arena or any of that. But to take those satellites down nine to replace them with a new satellite the kids i cannot obviously change the transmitter in orbit, it would cost billions of dollars. How do i not take down satellites like that and caused billions of dollars from a taxpayer perspective but give the spectrum to the light to the right people in the nation . You can see the playing field. You have every single piece of parts, from cell phones to radar to weather radars to highfrequency calms to the dod radars and unmanned vehicles all the way across how do i get the maximum out of that limited resource . Spectral reconstruction, that is what rc what i see our nation doing right now. Is interesting part for me the international peace. I brought it up in the beginning. We can build a domestic plan all day long. But keep in mind that satellites are whizzing light you as we speak. Other ships come into our harbors from different nations. All of these happen. They can about it from a military perspective. If i am kicking down the door, i may not care what spectrum i am using. But if i am the building a nation, if i am in afghanistan or iraq or if im in the philippines tried to take care of a typhoon issue, i want you spectrum that does not enter does not hinder their own efforts within the country. So i need spectrum i can go in and use all hotel in the interfering with their particular spectrum. It is important for every one to realize that there is a normalization of some of these things across the world as far as the spectrum frequencies. That is also good from a business perspective good if you sell standardized products on the internet, whether it is a or some otherlam kind of radio you are try to sell. Here is an interesting comparative peace to this. This comes up a lot in discussion. Until i did the numbers and had these slides done, we take a look at the first band. It is the prime beach flat edge. It is something that our Technology Allows us to use very efficiently and also has good distance coverage. Coverage,d distance good penetration into buildings, for why your cell phone works in certain buildings and why Certain Companies dont work is oh may have to do with the frequency. We hear a lot about what the federal bones. Nonfederal euros has been allocated to 31. 7 . We are sharing today and were pretty good at it. Sharing is something that is happening today. The way they do sharing today and the way we will do it tomorrow in our two Different Things. There are much more automated ways to let us use those frequencies even tighter. When you provide the from a sharing perspective. Gigahertzout the 36 span. I dont know if you saw the sochi beach but its pretty rocky. Eight percent is in the federal exclusive basis. 18 is allocated for nonfederal. 74 is shared. Back one slide, if you would. . We have to take correctly and how we will do it. We have to take technology into account and how we will share in the future to make sure we get right. If we get this right we can make it right for all. Slide. Interesting from my perspective. Across thel plan board was to go into the right, part of the broadcast. Way of doingrmal business. We moved to a new spectrum that has also vacated that. 13 billion they are and if we look at all of the federal board, itcross the was somewhere around 17 billion billion verified from different looks. Taking down satellites and truly vacating, you are talking lots and lots of money. Be mostot going to likely the best use of that money and we will not get there. 20ould not have gotten to billion plus. 17551850 as Telecom Broadband for other parts of the world but not the u. S. Right now. Dod just got finished leaving 17101755. The interesting perspective is kind of a job to my brethren over here. We were supposed to get out and there would be no more moves at that point. We finished march but now its the right thing to do. That was less costly than we expected because most of the equipment we had in the lower band we were able to read tune that youuc there see there. It was not as costly and move as we expected. We are having to move again. We take a look at the bottom. They did back and said not want the whole band right now. Is 25 megahertz of it. Ok. From that perspective, how do we do this . We look at compression. Just compressed out of 17101755 so that would the a dual compression. In othert possible parts. Was whatd part of it if we moved that and shared with the broadcasters . They dont want to make that and may have some open spectrum. We can do this as a partnership, move these out of 2110 and get into the other band per se. Allows them to get into a551780 and have geographical sharing, if you will. Industry does not have a need for a lot of broadband because they are in the middle of nowhere frankly. It is a winwin situation. Leaving them with small chunks of it compressing parts of it into the upper part of the ban and moving the ones we can to 202520 110 allows us to do a and have a balance across the board. This is a blandly came up with. Is the plan we came up with. For the dod, true vacating the spectrum, if you look at the reconstruction, its probably not possible in the future. An industry perspective, vacating provides the best profit, no doubt about it. Combination of the fact we could technology was not really ready to be comfortable from a risk perspective to do dynamic sharing as well as some of the systems, thist was the right plan at this point in time. I think technology is going to push that a little bit here and we are about five years off. Are some capabilities to allow us to get more capabilities out of less spectrum and allows us to have a different approach in years to come when they come back for the next share of our particular problem. We will have to do that in the future. No doubt about it. Fine. What do we see here . This is the strategy development. We have been too reactive that the dod. To be proactive in this. There is a need from an industry perspective for the spectrum. Theres a need for dod. We need to be more proactive instead of reactive. It striven by technology. Technology has to be proven on the largescale. When we are talking about the move that i mentioned before, we are talking about over 5000 frequency assignments, 5000 individual assignments and trying to make that particular puzzle, the rubiks cube, come together is difficult. If you test on dynamic respectruming, its difficult. Policy is a big part of the puzzle. How much risk are we going to take yucca what are the best needs of our nation as a whole . Puce is asy difficult, honestly with all of the stakeholders as the technology and policy. If i take technology and its all working and i have it to a specific level ready to deploy, if i dont have deregulatory puce next its going to be years. Those must go together. There are a lot of stakeholders. Thats not something i fully understood. We dont have as much regulatory issues but when we are doing a largescale issue for the nation and internationally changing the Frequency Band can take 10 years. 10 years, folks. That can be a driver more than the technology can. Spectrum stakeholders tie all of this together. Dod would be to move from the first band, 20502120. O moreme up with a much complicated solution but i think it will benefit all and make us think about how to do this next time it its already making us more efficient brower the new acquisitions were doing on particular systems we are dying within the dod. Then you look at the requirements that drive it and how we will change those in the future. How do we get more spectrum efficient about taking care of the bottom line at the same time . How do we work handinhand with industry to make sure that some of this we are developing is just as useful for them as it is for us and vice versa . That is the key. How do we use them together knowing on the battlefield today whether it is saving people in a situation with a typhoon in the philippines or a true battlefield than highintensity lte, data,roadband, matters in the battlefield. This goes back and forth to between industry and the federal agency. Slide. Wees the perspective on how are going to do this. We are going to do a spectrum rollout and we will come out talking about how exactly we will approach this in the future. We have to have flexible spectrum access. We look at how technology is moving Going Forward. We getting there very quickly. We are not there regulatorywise. Everybody agrees its the way of. He future right now, its a very clear after this last spectrum discussion that is the way to the future. Adaptability goes handinhand with flexible access. We are going to have to think through how we do ask us if we are going to have to use every piece of that spectrum correctly. Operational agility will be key to bus. Because i have a system that is only counted to that satellite at one frequency, i cannot replace that in orbit. Or i need to switch to a different band than not caused that to have to change out in orbit. Thats an example of where we are apathetic are a lot more examples of where a uav that could be saving thousands of lives in some places such as, again, the philippines or what we saw in town when nietzsche pan where we saw that wave coming in. We have to be able to switch to a different band is so that is the frequency agility. It made as well be two transmitters but where we are going is more than softwaredefined radio. We are in this band today, lets work it. Its open andr y, we can save lives. This is where we are going. This is why its so important for us to be proactive. Therehe one who put it on and talked about it but the driverless vehicles are a reality in different parts of the country. They really are. They talk to the safety of life piece of the spectrum whether you are the faa flying airplanes, the google car, or youre looking at that flying car. Honestly, i thought as a kid that for sure i would be flying one of those things. My middle daughter wants to be the first person on mars and shes adamant about it. Shes 15 years old. I see where the capabilities are going as far as the amount of things from a do theoretical perspective. Its important that we take the data and manufacturer to build those things. Thats the next great step we will see. That change in the fabric of the makeup of the world. I think thats one right there. Slide. Moree going to have to do sharing in the future. We have to get it right. T will require Technology Technological innovation is the key to that particular pace. All federal agencies as well as industry, we have to understand from our perspective, from the dod, this is harder, more problematic. When you are focused on 10 Different Things all over the world, literally, things are happening every single day from the dod perspective and you are worried about the next threat to our nation, sometimes it does not have the same priority but it does matter and it makes us more capable if we do it right. Thats the key. I think i skipped one up there. Partnerships and collaboration. We are not doing this without partnerships and collaboration. Think thats what were doing with some of those people right there today that we had discussed it as i think it is key to a lot of our future. Proactive versus reactive. That anymore. On it has to occur on both sides globally. There is a global context to this and i would argue that some parts of industry dont fully understand the impact of that particular piece to it. I think it gives them a market so thats an important part of it. Near term and parttime deliverables. What can we do today, midterm, far term . Us fromot available to the technological side as well as the regulatory side but in the next change, i think it will be and i think thats a critical point here. This has to be a team effort. We have to get rid of old thinking, if you will, where everyone states their position and puts a line in the sand about it. We have to stretch all of our thought processes on this. The last part is the cooperative testing. It will be the National Advanced spectrum and communication test network. One thing we learned out of a recent issue we had is how do we test something . Industry says this, dod says this, other experts say this. How about we have a Clearing House of testbed that we can actually have an environment where we have the testing environments available to us and we can do pay per see where they can come through and validate all the particular requirements they have so we can roll these things out and we can all agree that the endgame, these test results are the right ones and we can make decisions. That was one of the perspectives we had out there. That was the final piece of that slide. Will throw a slide appear at the end because we will see this on the 20th. One more slide forward and that will be the strategy, the call to action. Revolution in an evolutionary way. I think it is a revolutionary way to think about it versus the way we are going about it. Thats the perspective on that by will be later this week. All that is is a visionary piece and now were looking at the implementation. That will be electromagnetic spectrum, if you will, a lot of dod speak. Bottom line, it makes this into implementable action. There is vision and this will be done with all of the services and departments within the od to see how we beat proactive versus reactive in the future and that is key on what were trying to do. I can give you example after example. Thats it and im open for questions however you want to do it. [no audio] nice to see the cover though. Thus the cover. Could you identify yourself . Can we go back . You actually had one of your slides, which is why im asking. In implementation of the strategy, whats the timeline . Through andis to go finish on the six month timeline to say will be due at dod maybe i will back up. When we build out something, we go to all the services in me go throughout the department and we say, this is the strategy. I think of it as a vision document to get people on the same sheet of music. Does this make sense to you . We walk through it at that perspective. Once we adjudicate that, it can take months talking back and forth understanding this am that perspective and we come to a common consensus. Second part is the Implementation Plan. How will you do the vision that just came out . You sit down and you figure out exactly how you are going to do it. In example we did was the secure comps. Commercial mobile we did Strategy First and then implementation on how we would walk this through the services. How do you do acquisition differently from that perspective . How do you do spectrum when we are doing operations differently act go you can walk right through this and this is where the rubber meets the road and we have to work through individual pieces on what makes sense and what is good for the department. Those are the nearterm implementations . You talked about near, mid, and longterm. Near to midterm. And then it has to be fully adjudicated with an Implementation Plan that you could inc. Of as a part the to this vision or strategy. Does that make sense . We have one in the front. Defense daily. What International Partners are you guys working with when you bands . Llocating the these new band you want to move detected orthey antijam resistant . Im not a spectrum expert. Question. Ts to your when we are working with International Partners we do that through the International Telecommunication union. The front for that would be the state department. Fcc is a big part of the team and all of them go forward and it is how we work towards it. We have a dod position a u. S. Position and then we go for that. That is how it is presented. Partnership from the dod, you go in somewhere whether youre working on rebuilding like afghanistan or iraq, working overseas in the philippines and japan, you work with their government and they are a partner for the local area for certain types of communications that dont interfere with satellites. A second part of your question was about the antijam. The frequencies we are going 17551850. We go from 20502110. It does take some technological change but you do get the same capabilities. What we are required to do is certify he can get the same capabilities and the same operational allowance is within the new spectrum and that is the certification that we do. In short, yes. Hows that . European space agency. You said youre going to say a few words and i would be interested to know with the dod position is on the discussions that are going on to open it up to more mobile groundbased users. Dod position is simple. The u. S. Position is not the dod so my comment would be premature from that aspect the we are working through it from the perspective of how do we do this from a proactive perspective on this . Of we make sure the safety life systems are managed at this point . How do we take care of our partners . That include our partners in europe to make sure rebalance that as well. That is the perspectives. At the same time, how do we get technology to move faster to allow us to do these things easier . That is a very difficult and no matter where you are on the globe from that perspective. Thats an important part of it. Going back to a comment, 20 252110 in the reasons we like it is overseaswise it is not broadband. From that perspective, it marries a very well with other systems if we went into other countries that we would be able to use that frequency without interference from host country systems. Thats why it was useful from our perspective and better than 17551850 which goes back to the five gigahertz. We need to be aligned on that by virtue of the interferences. Thats a clear part of the discussion were having. I can guarantee and it would be premature for me to comment even though i work on it for about two days. There that is. Guys are chuckling because they were here with me on that. Im with fujitsu. Cyberspace is basically flashes of light and spectrum. How does your spectrum merge with the departments electromagnetic spectrum is all one. They go handinhand together. When you talk about light, you are talking about optical as well and thats one way to get out of the rf spectrum. , the carpet that weaves everything through, that the critical point. Whether you are talking about electronic warfare, cyber, optical, were going to end up causing some kind of an incompatibility issue and its best for safety of life issues that they are attached with the cyber aspect. [inaudible] i will not comment on that. It actually has been probably, the communication part of it has been a very fascinating. To be honest, if you think about it some of the communication pieces of the most important when you are flying across the world. After 9 11, one of the huge limitations was communications to make sure that the right people we were going against him not doing that. It became our weak point and that it became our strength by fixing all of it. Thats the aspect of where i got connected to this and its been on the rise ever since. Thank you so much for coming out today. [applause] coming out. [applause] thank you. That was a lot of data and that that was a lot of data. Im going to entire panel of experts to go through that. There are bios are on the website. We will probably do this in the wrong order but we have julius one of the leading experts on the Technology Part which we heard about. Hula from itia. Enu he is probably reluctant to get involved again in another effort. We have stacey black, the vp for federal regulatory external and regulatory affairs. That would be enough to keep anyone busy but we appreciate you coming to take the time to talk. Finally, john hunter from tmobile am the director of spectrum policy. I would like to ask each of the panelists to give brief remarks and we will start with stacey and go down the road. We will take questions from the audience. Good morning. I would like to limit my remarks to the role that procurement will take in the mission that the general talked about. Procurement will be a big deal. Technology is rolling along, as he pointed out in his keynote. For example, i dont know if you noticed, but he had an acronym, llr, land local radio, which is an acronym for push to talk. This has been around for almost 70 years and it has gone from two radios that have push to talk all the way now to where we ave an actual device that is broadband radio that also has a push to talk application over it. It could be an iphone but it does exactly the same thing this radio that requires its own dedicated frequency and is used in the theater or on bases. We see as a company that push the talk is what i would call low hanging fruit in terms of being moved to a broadband type of network. Base communications, port to port, mobile to mobile, machine to machine. They are great applications where they are not missioncritical but they are logistical in nature. Its a great opportunity to move them to more of a more broadband environment. A some cases it could be commercial Broadband Network and in some cases it could be private such as what new York City Police department did recently with their network. That waspplication recently announced in Army Magazine last month as what was called the combat training for the ranged communication system. It has been installed in fort irwin and fort polk. It is like a laser tag system where they have rifles, pistols, tanks. It is actually like a laser tag system and they have installed a communication on the basis and they are putting all of the telemetry in a coordinated effort. This is all explained in the u. S. Army magazine. These for ranged communications and actually areastowers in these two covering 95 of the Training Area and now they are starting devices. It has wifi, gps, bluetooth. Ins device could now be used place of a 1000 device that is applicationspecific for combat training systems. As a result, they doubled the ,mount of instrumented entities five thousand vehicle entities, voice communication systems, trainer devices and target and engagement systems. Great example of where they have embraced commercial technology, brought down costs, and started working in a publicprivate environment with commercial broadband lte providers to accomplish combat Training Missions in these bases. A new way of thinking in terms of procurement. Very expensive oneofakind device to now using off commercial, offtheshelf system that has more of an operational expense as opposed to a very expensive capital expense but its going in the right way in my opinion. Thanks. I will focus my comments on what the general talked about specifically around collaboration partnerships. I think it is so critical. We learned a lot over the years. Ive been involved in the aws clearing relocation effort. We learned a lot through aws 1 working with dod and the other agencies. There are market realities about we are trying to rollout. As many of you know, we have the working group process. I think it put forward unprecedented levels of collaboration that you are seeing. We learned a lot from that. Youre going to find we talk about 17551780 and it will be a relocation. Then you will operationalize the use of this spectrum. As we saw, we certainly had some challenges but you have to work. Hrough those challenges even today, we still deal with those issues and in the end it will be collaboration and working with the agencies that will make this work for both sides. Thank you. I had a really great talk with general wheeler. We are all pulling in the same direction. I have never seen a closer alignment between the thinking on both the federal side and the nonfederal aside with the appreciation that we will need to find ways to accommodate all of the innovative ideas and growth thats coming. Will challenge the need for more spectrum and then i asked what they did this morning and a check the smartphones, use their key fog to get into the car, checking at home with a wireless baby monitor and some we sawgee whiz stuff on the screen you know is coming. Driverless cars may be a bit but your devices basically checking how you are doing today. Do you need to go in and get a checkup . This is really enabling all sorts of new applications and advance the economy. Im just going to say a few words about tech talk on the bands. What weve been learning as weve gone through this process, youve heard reference to 1755. For someone not focused on the is importantthis is its a piece that sits adjacent to one of the major wireless broadband bands, aws 1. We already have in our portfolio spectrum that would match up with the companion piece to expand that band using the one youve been hearing about, 17 551780. It was a long, hard road for everybody and we still have a ways to go. To go on lot of work the 17551780 peace. We made a decision that the difficulties of the reallocation and the expense when compared to of the lower pieces sent us down this path. A need to transition systems out of that spectrum and there will be some that remain and we have to find ways to share with what will be there for some time. Part of the solution there was sharing with the band at 20252110 but it is not use constantly. There is space there basically for the spaces to share. Quite cooperation between the broadcasters and the department of defense and working up to part of the solution. What we have ahead of us is really working on the transition plans and making all parties understand how things are going to be shared, with the transitions are going to look like over time. People view the spectrum below three gigahertz as prime beachfront property and above three gigahertz there are a few pebbles or stones. Identified side had 100 megahertz spectrum that would be made available for nonfederal use. The biggest thing that people focus on is offshore highpowered navy radar. It is identified of having exclusionary along the coast but this was all focused on ubiquitous widearea wireless systems. In many cases for wireless broadband is capacity. On smallarted focusing cells, lowpower to be put in places where you really need to pick up capacity but you just dont have enough space. There was a lot more interest on and a kindral aside. F changes the analysis have the difference between the database access to control access and devices and they suggested a building on that model with a new generation of Smart Technology and they 27 hundred30 700. One of the bands we have been focusing on for that has been 3. 5 mhz. 27003700. Ntified it could control access through devices of priority access, generalized access to increase the efficiency in opening up to as many players as possible. That is still act of and we are working with ntia in the department of defense to continually look at the systems they have in that space. You heard a little about five gigahertz and there is a long story there, too. Is one of the primary unlicensed band geek used for wifi. You see 2. 4 gigahertz and then you will see five gigahertz. There is already spectrum for wifi at five gigahertz and it shares today with federal Radar Systems. Going into 2003 world radio conference, they advocated a bottle based on dynamic frequency selection. It was brandnew and accepted by the world and came back. They found out it took a little bit more work than we anticipated. . O why is this so hard he . Youre searching for signals that you cannot identify. It is often not sufficient. It was really tough and there were points along the way where it was not clear we were going to come up with an answer. Fastforward to today. The Wifi Technology has continued to evolve to the new standard you are seeing on the store shelves and what is so magic about it. It can offer data speeds above one gigabit per second and it uses 160 megahertz and some spaces. Bands that couple of have been identified. ,ne is in the middle, 53505470 but there are different types of Radar Systems in there. They cannot be used without some adjustment or some other change to share with the systems that are in there. Youve already heard the question from the audience. That wea lot of work have to do to make this happen. I tend to be an optimist. Get technical people together trying to solve a problem, you can often come up with a solution. Figureten than not, you out a way to do it. I will stop there. , well add as we go forward will continue to have the exclusive use of the unlicensed models but as research for more, this will really be the focus in trying to figure out how we develop techniques to evaluate both from the analytical and a new testingnd method will be a new challenge for us as we go ahead so we do not stand in the way of these things of the Testing Process that has to be as least as fast as the technology we are rolling out. Thank you for having me. Thanks for the reunion. Back, fond memories of last time i was at the old. Ocation, i guess, at csis i was working at the Spectrum Policy Task force at the fcc. Back in 2003, i did pull up the report from there. A lot of it is interesting to go revisit that. And we wereame over leading to do the report. I cannot remember if that was before or after we had run into each other at our kids school. I went back. I just folded up. We are looking at the recommendations and its amazing how these things im around. First recommendation was white house oversight. Since then, there has been at least three president ial memos on spectrum and a new spectrum policy team established in the white house. Another recommendation was the spectrum advisory board. Tia, we have a Spectrum Advisory Committee and one of our members is here in the front row. There is also an Interagency Group called theppsg, policy Plan Steering Group called the ppsg. The cio from dod and all of the other agencies with spectrum are there. Theres lots of interagency collaboration. Reinforcing the functions was another one and we had a little discussion about that and how that is maybe still in the works. I will not go into that. Research support for specter medivation is one thing that struck a chord and it is a key focus and it is one of the working on in conjunction with a National Institute for standards technology. Were putting together a center for advanced communications and general wheeler talked about the initiative which would be under that center for advanced communications so that is being implemented. Last but not least, the recommendation from csis was a spectrum strategy. Of interesting. A few days before the dod announces their strategy. That itits important and asnology driven these guys mentioned, centered collaborative efforts and spectrum sharing. Its interesting. These things dont die easily. These recommendations, even though they were made a long ultimately somebody picked up and implements them. Other point i just want to touch upon regarding incentives and spectrum and how they apply to the federal agencies. Those of you who stay at home thursday and friday because of , there was announcement that came out of the white house from the office of Technology Office of science and Technology Office about a new report authored by the science and Technology Policy institute with a survey of a variety of or approaches, recommendations for federal agencies to relinquish or share spectrum. Spectrum policy team in the white house put out a federal register notice seeking comments on that report and it encouraged people i think its about a 30 day cycle to take a look at that report. It is quite lengthy but quite comprehensive. It hits all of the major areas that would encourage or facilitate sharing, relinquishing spectrum, by federal agencies. It includes things like user ,ees, specter medivation fund even applying a kind of spectrum property regime for these federal agencies. Oldfashioned plan of control for other agencies that have, over the years, be by various documents and papers, things like that. People to takege a look at that and respond to questions in a federal register notice. One thing that is interested in to me isinteresting int its a general manager the things that drive them. But ive learned in the last two years ive been back in the tia ntia, an their objective is to perform in the best way manageable. General wheeler talked about how that can be done. Technology but if the people doing the mission dont have control over the money, what are the ways in the Property Rights type scheme where you give agencies more howdom and more autonomy they control the spectrum. Can they buy it and divided up . Im kind of reminded as i worked on the spectrum, even the fcc did not grant secondary Market Authority to all uses of the spectrum. It limits the exclusive use of the spectrum. It does not make sense. There is not one Single Agency does not have exclusive rights. It is all shared among the between federal and nonfederal organizations. I would encourage those interested in the area to on thoseiews incentives and ideas. Thanks. Peter reminds me one of the last times we did this, it was a aw is tor doing rf have patience. When he think about where we were 10 years ago, we are in a lot better place but i want to challenge the panel with a question. Not sure it would be fair to start with, but thinking about where we want to be in 10 years. What is the goal where we want to end up . Maybe you could start with that. First . Do you want to go i think over the next 10 years, theres going to be a lot of new technology introduced. Obviously therell be spectrum sharing technology and you will see a lot more like the 3. 5 initiative where there is the shared Access Databases and things like that. That will be very important. There Cost Effective enough to be consumerbased. I think youre going to see more smart networks. Whether it is even in the wifi environment where everything is connected to the control plane and this controlling the communication across a variety of forms and that will make communications a lot more efficient. That is what we will see in the next decade. Ive said this before in a number of forums, but i think certainly is an evolution not a revolution. As the general pointed out, some of the technology is there today and we are seeing Great Strides with those advancements, but i am large and there are a number of challenges to work through with regards to spectrum sharing. Absolutely 10 years, i think were are going to start seeing more spectrum sharingtype technologies given the band julius talked about. , sensingof databases the challenging you have with 11ac can be problematic and trying to figure out how you would make that work. I think there are going to be other types of applications. Maybe a database is more. Ppropriate i think 1750 51780, we will see some sharing their with geographicperations base. As we move forward, i think from an industry perspective, we will get the opportunity to showcase some of the opportunities that lte has to offer and we have invited dod to participate in the demo where we share the information next month. In the end, i think the goal is we are getting as much out of the space as we possibly can. They have the opportunity to develop and implement them. From a technical standpoint, we talk about the spectrum below three gigahertz, but when you really get down into what is , you start to understand that all of the low hanging fruit was not so low to begin with has been picked. You are down to what i mentioned before and you start to look that look at what is there. The radar to see if the storms are coming through is in there. Lets just move it someplace else. You cannot do that because of the physical characteristics they need to be able to do what they do need to be in that part of the spectrum. How do we share those things . It matters where they are. Most of them are in places where people are. This is the classic geographic. Eparation we are down to doing things where, can i operate when the radar is pointed in the other direction . Its incredibly complicated and hard. Were past the simple stuff of reallocating the system. We are really at the cuttingedge of technology and what can be done to gain access and value out of that space. To look ahead 10 years, you need to look back 20. Look at the transitions that weve kind of gone through and the trends that i have personally been scarred from. I will talk about kind of the regulatory process. It still takes an awful long time. Throw in the International Component and you really have a long time. I would like to see in the next 10 years some improvements in that process and the way that can happen is really through what has been started fairly recently with more and more of the Publicprivate Partnership collaboration approaches. Get the issues on the table as early as possible. Get the people in the room as early as possible. What kind of process improvements can we make . What kind of institutional things need to be reexamined . We are starting to do that. Talked to a couple of the groups and organizations. It is very crucial. Leaps andial to make bounds and that aspect of the technology would be great. To 3g, 3g to 4g. Some of it was technical driven by the fact that you did not need to come back to the toulator and get permission go from one generation to the next. You did need to come back to get the spectrum. Sharing spectrum, access, improving the access for that is what i would like to see. Peter set me up for one thing i wanted to mention. I agree that the processes today take a long time. Often it is frustrating for all of the parties. Theyre looking at whether it not. D be 10 db tighter or if we get them sitting down together, the technical people will work it out. I have often used the example of area networksdy that were seeking to share spectrum with aeronautical telemetry systems and each side would paying the other about its technical analysis. Once without them sitting together in the room, it took some time. They could not figure out a way with the combination of operational control, coordination, technical limits, the two could share the same spectrum. Friday, Diane Cornell released a report on process reforms at the fcc including some of these ideas that people have just been talking about, trying to find alternative ways to address some of these issues that come up. We invite Public Comment on that you can see it. This is a collective matter for the entire community to take a look at whats in the report. If you think there might be alternatives, Better Options out there, our ears are open. Let me ask one inspired about those remarks. Where do we stand in terms of other countries thinking where we move forward . Where do you think the u. S. Is most efficient driving the International Process . I know thats a general one thats a little off topic. Given how much the International Theme has come up and we need to coordinate, im wondering if people want to give it a try. We will start with peter and work down the road. My areadefinitely not of expertise. Im more of an observer on this. Definitely a cadre of very dedicated people in collaboration does occur to come up with u. S. Positions especially. In my experience looking out of countries and the ceiling and seeing them following the lead of the u. S. Hasuld say spectrum sharing definitely taken off globally, the concept. Focusedas really been on a kind of licensed approach to sharing. Licensed share access, authorized shared access concepts they are exploring. Back in the old days, you looked states as the laboratories for experimenting with new approaches, it is now different areas providing for spectrum access. They experimented for a long time and develop spectrum fees for the government users and how they managed the government. We looked at that, the report i mentioned looks into that experience as well and evaluating that. We look at other countries as laboratories and collaborators. Like general wheeler said it is a Global Spectrum environment. On the same page. At the same time, what let others to take the lead and see if it works out and maybe you can follow up with that. That is a good approach as well. So, at the technical level there is a lot of work going on internationally. Universities and so forth. Am go to conferences, and i sure there are other people go to, which has been going on for 10 years. Its a bit surprising how much is going on about dynamic spectrum access around the world. The normal process is you first see these things in the laboratories and then the universities and then, assuming they still have merit, they bubbled their way up to the policy wings. I will just focus on a couple of things. Tv light space in the database model that we adopted in the United States. It has been embraced already by a number of countries around the world that are deploying systems on a trial basis. Theyny of these countries, actually have more white space in the United States. Sendu are trying to signals out for broadband at a distance, it is ideal. It is an instance where something that was born in the holdd states is catching in other parts of the world. Process istional slow to change. I think it is understandable. At times, it can be frustrated. , wehave to keep in mind have huge investments in the systems that are there today. We should be making sure that both systems are protected. The classic model has been the kind of stove piped out locations. That is the way the date ofional allocations is set up. Weve come to an operator or people who are stakeholders in a block of spectrum and say, we have a great idea. We are going to put someone and who will get out of your way. There is naturally, a first reaction of that puts my system at risk and it is not clear to me that it is actually going to work. Of course, in the end, how does this benefit me instead of how does this make the community better. I think it is going to be a long process and are nationally. When people start to see benefits to their economies from access to the systems and that the technology also works, it will work its way into the International Process. In fact, i think there has been a task group that is been looking at cognitive radio. It is getting more attention internationally. From a commercial perspective, we kind of look at this. In many cases it can be like watching paint dry. It takes a long time. I appreciate all the work that teeing up these bands for broadband. I go back to 2000 were a number of bands ortega up were teed up. It is a lengthy process. The fcc has a tough job of trying to balance the federal needs with the commercial requirements. That is difficult. I think on the technical level, in preparation for this upcoming work, there is a number of joint technical working groups that are working to assess a number of bands that will be put on the agenda. The challenges are brought. Broad. It will take work on both sides. Peter is right. The u. S. Leads the world in this regard and the other countries tend to follow our lead. Hopefully the process will speed up. Factwill just add to the that the International Standards community and he rolled up a play in this is so critical. By their very nature, are looking for the greatest economies of scale they can get. If you can get and this get bands that are harmonize globally, that makes it easier to market to devices that are affordable. I think this is one of the thewe have to be participants need to be thinking through, how do we make sure we have harmonize to bands that harmonized how do we make sure we have harmonize bands . Is a robust agenda. The me of anyone in the audience has a question. Go ahead. Thank you. A question for any of the speakers on the panel. As are any been has there been any discussion about using funding and the Spectrum Fund on what the but sharing opportunities what are the best sharing opportunities . Yes. [laughter] there been several opportunities to expand the funds. Why not develop better technologies . Right now, the spectrum location that was created in 2004 and amended in 2012 only covers costs for relocation or sharing. Those costs that are covered did expand a little bit to cover some and those research and development. The recommendations by the president s council for advancement of science others have suggested the csi s report from remember,nt suggested some sort of fund in this legislation as well. That way the auction proceeds would go into more broad reinvestment. The idea has been out there. It is the idea of really getting it it would probably require legislation, every time you one you move money from one purpose to another. You have to get congress to bless that. If there are other ways to do it, it would be fine. It is one of those ideas that has been around. It is just a matter of implementing a. There is lots of demands for money. That goes to the point. Just a dragses are on resources sometimes. It is finding the resources to get these things done, whether it is doing a test, going out and conducting tests, doing modeling, simulation. This is i was talking to a company the other day about a really large company, how long it took them to get approval to buy a Software Package to do modeling. This is for one of the bands of the future that they had a lot of stake in. It is not just government. It is a lot of folks that are hurting for money. To filter that back into r d and testing, that would be great. Anyone else . I just want to add i think, with regard to doing the testing and studies, from an industry perspective we actually embarked on a monitoring the type ofassess omissions that were encumbered in specific bands and figure out what impact those emissions would have on aircraft. I think the results from the analysis were telling and we are begin the process of sharing that with the Regulatory Community and dod. Hopefully, a way to move things forwards in regard to how better can you share between federal and nonfederal assets. I will followup on that by saying, i think it is a great idea of using the srs for this might actually be a good input to the whole spectrum incentive rfi. If you think about that there are today, disincentives for an agency to do testing and expend resources to figure out how to move out of a band or to share it. A case in point in going back to the combat training Sensor Center i gave before, had there been money available for the army to have done their testing, that program might have accelerated itself twofold, easily. It took a while. Was still a that it proposal that was brought to them, that they were finally able to test and get behind it and now they are implementing it. It is probably a getaway a way of getting around the disincentives for relocating or sharing. Jennifer, please. Jennifer warren, lockheed martin. My question is mostly for peter. Is relationship the dod putting forth this new strategy, are you seeing this reflected in any other federal agency . If you and general wheeler noted, there really is no exclusive dod backing. It is shared with other agencies that have significant Infrastructure Investment or constructions. Thank you. Yes. Oh, ok. Federal agencies a large al qaeda pre at large are kind of reexamining their strategies. Will be announced later this week. I wont go into the details on that to not get out in front of that. Again, like i mentioned before, it really should center around technology and innovation, but also collaboration. Continuing we continue to bring agencies to the table, get on the same page. Seeing how they can Work Together in regards to one of lawbands, 1755, enforcement surveillance. It happens across federal and state agencies. Is there a way they can collaborate on developing the next generation of surveillance applications and technologies . Getting the about right people in the room talking with each other and a strategy tactic, more likely, of using this crowd sourcing, for lack of a better term, among agencies and the commercial side. That is the focus strategy i would like to see. Theirre are definitely of other agencies that are very , like the center for advanced communications and they will be participating in that. With petersree short answer. Yes. Youre seeing it in some the grassroots agencies. Having gone through this exercise focused here on commercial wireless, there are plenty of other services where we are looking at sharing spectrum. An important point to mention is that it needs to be a twoway street. When the agencies look at this and say, ok, if you are going to believe in sharing, it cannot just be sharing my space. Providingo be benefits to agencies to be able to share space elsewhere on the they mayin a way that not have a current allocation. We have actually issued proposals to do just that in a number of places. Aboutnly, one you know relative to commercial space and it has been important to the federal government to have an upgrade n their allocation of their own earth stations that are using commercial satellites. We proposed to allow the federal systems to actually federal users to have access to the space in the spectrum we are talking about here and we also propose to allow it in 305. I think there has to be a change in the way that we have looked at things on both sides. We dont have any final questions. I will ask the panelists do we . Sorry. Good morning. I suppose this question is mostly for fcc, although anyone is free to jump them. It has to do with Unmanned Aircraft systems as a specific example of an emerging technology that is going to require spectrum resources. General wheeler had a couple of pictures of the Dominos Pizza uas. Ry u. S. This is a technology that is going to have thousands of aircraft in the sky before 2020. The faa has a congressional mandate of 2015 for full integration yet we dont have one of the details that is missing from the faas roadmap is how we are going to handle frequency for line of sight and beyond. I am curious to know while dod has its spectrum assets, civil users to not and what is the plan for addressing that . Thank you. Bandsall have different depending on whether the pizzas going to a private sector user or [laughter] i think we have a lot of work ahead of us on this. First of all, i dont think that orple appreciate the ua s uavs come in all shapes and sizes and have different applications. You have to be concerned about the command and control, concerned about, in some cases have realtimeto video, so we have a lot of work at of us in identifying what the needs are and where the appropriate places for them to operate. I think that sharing is going to be a given. We are going to have to figure out, what can they share with and it will not be easy. But we will find a way. Clearly it is fcc, federal government as well. Im glad you brought that up. It also demonstrates the fact that demand is not only on the commercial side in your traditional broadband mobile type applications. There is a lot of application for federal and nonfederal in other context. Supporting uavs and other Unmanned Systems is huge. You will see, for example in the dod proposal for using 2025, it suggests using smarter technology and multiband capabilities. The newer applications and approaches will be more dynamic and more capable of finding the best spectrum available when and where it is needed. Is not one there single scenario for those types of platforms. Altitudes, various various locations, various times. They are going to have to be very, very spectrum agile. They will be driving a lot of that Technological Development as well. Oldnt see the same dedicated band approach. Or maybe one or two bank dedicated bands two dedicated bands for the controlling, but video download, payloadtype applications coming from them . You will have to find a lot spectrum in a variety of places depending on where it is. I will also point out that the way this up right ash supply chains the way the supply chains work is that they are parallel. They dont often cross each other. You look at the mobile industry and the suppliers there, and look at the suppliers and other radio markets. They dont even cross. You have to figure out a way for those to do a little cross polymerization. Cross polymerization crosspollination. What we found during some of platforms, the uav itself is a multitenant platform and is somewhat agile in terms of your ability to move that system to impactings without incumbent federal operations. Frequencyd look to bands for uavs, i would hope that we would continue that same process and in making sure that the platforms do have a multiband capability. Thank you. [inaudible] we have heard very frequently. We need to think about how the process can be streamlined, but also how it can be guided by policy that is shaped i both National Security and economic concerns. General wheeler pointed out how intertwined those are. There are still some sufficient differences that we need to think about the balance between the two. We talked about technology and r d. The technology always strikes me as one that is the Silver Bullet bullet in some ways for spectrum problems. We say we will fix it because we have the new technology, which i truly am an optimist on but you have to invest in it if you want to get it. Finally, we talked about the slow process, particularly when you throw in the international side. These are good topics to think about in the future. I will close by asking if anyone has final words of wisdom they want to share. Sayingll start off by that sharing is not the only solution. Operators and the whole auction environment which is good for the economy and treasury and all about that from an auction perspective, needs to continue and that will be done by cleared and vacated spectrum that can be sold at auction. While i understand the report is promoting sharing and i think we heard general wheeler say from his perspective, sharing is going to be the future. I think we as an industry and an economy need to think about how we can find more available spectrum to auction and provide the commercial mobile operators. Gov for having me. I appreciate it. It is a balance. Looking at the bands that are out there, it is a challenge for the federal government to find spectrum and make that available for mobile broadband. But i do think, as julie pointed out, that we are moving in the right direction. Both industry and government are forging ahead to try to figure out how we can make this spectrum work better for everyone. I think it is an evolution. It will not happen overnight. Were seeing sharing capabilities that we can employ in the 17551780 band. It will be very beneficial. To focus onntinue the Technology Improvements that are facilitating access to those bands, then i think that is where sharing becomes more commonplace than what were seeing today. Thank you. I had mentioned the models we have in the past of exclusive use where we see opportunity will still be pursued. I also think that as you look at the spectrum chart that the challenge you have is the services that are there, where do you relocate them to . Drives you off into sharing, to see if you can actually get value. By value, i mean not just having access to spectrum and sang, i have 100 megahertz here. It has got to be something that needs to go through the process that we actually serve needs. I think we will continue to pursue a long all fronts and it is not going to be any easier. No words of wisdom, but maybe just words of ignorance to offer. Technology how 10 years ago, we could not have protected where we are. I think it is easy to predict that some parts of the industry would not favor a sharing and ich and would like think a lot of federal agencies would like to have exclusive access to spectrum as well. You just dont know where technology is going to lead you. If you have the incentives and drivers for tech ologies to develop and make sure that any regulatory barriers are out of the future is limitless. Back in 10 years after your next report and we will reflect on that and see where how your recommendations are doing, jim. But thank you for having us. Well, i hope we can speed the process up a little bit but least join me in thanking our panel. [applause] thank you for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] looking at our primetime schedules on the cspan network, starting at 8 00 eastern, american profile enters interviews with senators bob coker bob corker. On cspan three, American History tv with a look back at the impingement impeachment of president though clinton. Today, press secretary jay carney briefed reporters at the white house. He responded to a question on the upcoming midterm elections wouldedicted democrats keep control the senate. Here is more now. If you dont want to get too much into politics, but you believe that health care will be an asset for the president in 2014. David axelrod agrees with you on that, but in the New York Times he says that the Koch Brothers are spending 20 million on senate races and he is concerned that democratic activists are too excited about 2016 and losing sight of the election ahead. Does the white house share the concern that the fellow democrats are not focused enough on the fact that if the president loses control the senate, it will be a big problem . This is not a campaign briefing. I can tell you the president is obviously going to engage and do everything he can to assist democrats running in 2014. But, he is principally focused on an agenda that it six that is asked that is designed to expand an agenda that will record reward hard work. If you lose control the senate, that will be hard to get the agenda through. The Democratic Party will not lose control the senate in arguing that is because of the policies that he and his allies are focused on expanding opportunity instead of repealing on providing broad support for the middle class so it can become more secure Going Forward and more jobs are created as opposed to support for special interest tax loopholes that benefit the few pew few. The president feels very approach ist the one the American People support. A portion of the white house briefing. Entiretyatch it its on the website, cspan that orange. Cspan. Org. Museum, wereation teach people the difference between police and what you can experiment with in the credit present. Teaching people i am challenging evolution are stupid it met the belief aspects of evolution and be up front about the difference here. Eying courage you to explain to us, why you should accept we should accept our word for it that natural law changes for thousand years ago, completely, and there is no record of it. There are periods that are older than that. There are human populations that are far older than that. Backraditions have gone farther than that. It is not reasonable to me that everything changed for thousand years ago. By everything, i mean the species, the surface of the , and, the stars in the sky the relationship of all the other living things on earth to humans. It is just not reasonable to me that everything changed like that. Evolution versus creationism. The science guy, l knight, working with