Transcripts For CSPAN2 Spectrum Allocation And National Security 20140218

Tonight, our conversation with Tennessee Republican senator bob corker when his early career in business. I had come in, started working like most folks when i was 13 doing all kinds of odds and ends, a construction laborer in kind of a rough carpenter when i graduate from college. I ended up being a construction superintendent. So after about four years, i have built some reasonable malls around the country and learned how to build projects, and i saved 8000. So when i was 25, i went in business. And i started doing a lot of repeat work, Small Projects like to get paid quickly. The company grew at about 80 a year the whole time, ended up building Shopping Centers around the country, retail projects in 18 states. So it was an energizing, a great place to be. I mean, the energy when you come in the front door it would almost knock 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, have done several things since there ended up acquiring a good deal of real estate and through the years, through portfolios and other companies, anyway, i love being in business. As a matter fact i loved everything ive done. And later, senator Amy Klobuchar are. She called me and i picked up the cell phone rather than walking in the senate and she was in tears and she said, mom, they said we cant wea were a bi at the pool party but you can wear canteen these which are these longer may drift she said dad doesnt understand the difference between a bikini and a tankini. I said getting on the phone now. I thought im not doing this balance very well. And i think for any mother it doesnt matter if youre a senator or if youre a nurse trying to balance a family and work. You never do it perfectly and anyone who says that they do is wrong. American profile interviews with senators opcode for and Amy Klobuchar are tonight at 8 p. M. Eastern on cspan, cspan radio and cspan. Org. The title is down to the crossroads, civil rights, black power. And it is a civil rights march that begins in memphis and in three weeks later and jackson. In those three weeks you can make an argument for Suffrage Movement anyways transform competitive approach is crossroads. The call for black power is first heard on the march. Stokely carmichael unveils out midway through the march ended generate controversy. It generates a great swelling of enthusiasm among many black people. In a lot of ways it ignites a new direction of black politics. Know, those changes that have happened over the course of time anyway but what the meredith marsh did was dramatize this shift is about to go civil rights leaders and regular people, white and black from all across the country and put them into this laboratory of black politics as it moves through mississippi. They created all these dramatic moments that highlighted the key divisions, some of the key tensions but also some of the key strengths that have long animated the suppression of it spent public of the Civil Rights Movement saturday night at 10 eastern and sunday at nine on afterwardafterward s. March 2 more about black power and the Civil Rights Movement, your calls, comments and tweets live from noon to 3 p. M. Eastern in depth on cspan2s booktv. And apple tvs book club you still time to comment on februarys in depth guest bonnie morris, read womens history for beginners and then go to booktv. Org to enter the chat room. We are live at the center for strategic and International Studies here in washington. Federal officials and Telecommunications Executives will be taking part in a discussion on the upcoming spectrum reallocation and how that will impact National Security. Pathless will discuss the procedures, policies and programs needed to make more spectrum available for new innovations and increased Economic Growth while maintaining National Security. Back in december fcc, we are postponing the instant of wireless spectrum auction until 2015. This is live coverage on cspan2. I should get underway in just a few moments. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] once again were alive at the center for strategic and International Studies here in washington for discussion on the upcoming spectrum reallocation and how that will impact National Security. Should get started here in just a couple of minutes live on cspan2. President obama today will be in Upper Marlboro maryland at the safeway just a vision center, the president will be talking a fuel efficiency standards. That will be on a companion network cspan starting at about 11 20 eastern. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] i would like people to take your seats so we can go ahead and get started. My name is jim lewis. We are here at csis where we are starting another round of discussions on spectrum policy and Spectrum Management. I didnt realize the last one was so long ago but this is the field that we have been interested in, we at csis have been interested in for a while. With a great panel. Our keynote speaker is general robert wheeler, who will be going through his slides and giving us some information on dods thinking on Spectrum Management and reallocation. Thanks for coming out on a day that the news outlets predicted would be one of unparalleled snow and blizzard, so i appreciate your heartiness, even though general, would you like to come up . So, i do know all the folks on the panel. We are usually yelling at each other so this ought to be a little bit of an interest discussion. Thanks for coming out. I know the snow is bad and i was a little eight. It took about 46 minute to be exact. So that was little bit of pain that i did not expect. I think this is important subject. And important subject for a nation because i think it talks to the National Security issue as was the economic issue and to be frank those are intertwined. Those are together. Thats one of the important takeaways if you take nothing else away that National Security and the Economic Growth and capability of strength of our nation are one. I think thats where we all need to think about this from the perspective. The other piece that i would like to make sure you walk away with is the international flavor. Its hard for people to fully understand sometimes asked to the spectrum played from a worldwide perspective. Because while we can make a domestic plan, if ill satellites over in the same spectrum that come from many countries, thats going to be a problem because of that particular point we start in either with air satellite and that causes problems for them to help us when we need help overseas for the same exact reason. Theres a very Strong International flavor that doesnt always get hurt well but that is a big deal. The world has become smaller. Theres no doubt with the advent of the internet and the way we are connecting together it is a much smaller world and that aspect is a critical part of spectrum. Let me talk to you more about our perspective on this from a dod site and where we think were going because a lot has changed. Slide, please. I can do that. There we go. Okay, this looks like a very complex slide but is there something to take away from it, but bottom line. Spectrum is a thread that ties all of dod together. The other part of the aspect of it is if you think about, think a three dimension. Think of the space dimension which is the across the top, the air dimension which is those aircraft theyre going back and forth, and the terrestrial. At that particular point of three communication layers, and all of them connect together on voice, video and data and all have to be across all three pieces. To all the way from space, all the way to the air layer and all the way down to the terrestrial later, all those connections occur and thats really what happens from a db perspective. I think youre seeing that in a domestically as well in the training and were seeing that grow and grow. Let me give you an example. I am a b2 Stealth Bomber guys went flying across the world in a nation and a combat or noncombat situation, i have a connection to the satellite continuously. I have data coming in. I have a laptop that sits between me that has Microsoft Office on it. So i get emails and things of that particular nature on the at the same time i got link 16 showing all the other aircraft and all the other potential threats that are out there in my particular screen. Im giving voice. All that is occurring at the same time so im receiving data, two separate screens, also receiving voice multiple in most cases. Coming from satellite, terrestrialbase base and at the time im also starting to get little pieces and parts of nonvoice type things, beats and squeaks and things understand that tell me where the threats are. All thats happening at the same time so you can intertwined all three of those thats an example of what we are seeing up in that particular slide. Next please. One back. Okay. On this particular site were talking about the data. Its a very interesting slide, takes a while to get to understand. Take a look at the topline this shows the traffic growth. Traffic growth in stabilizing. We will also see the per device growth. That is at a lower level but what is clear is that traffic, the amount of traffic is growing at a clear 20 . As the bison was drop off as dumb which were growing every year, traffic is still going up at about a 20 clip every year. That means dan is going to be the future. What does that any . Spectrum. Were growing at a rate that is somewhat stabilizing at this particular point but it is clear more spectrum is going to be required for more efficient use of spectrum and i will talk about both of those. Right here were seeing the whole commercial broadband peace to it is tied back to Economic Growth. Theres no doubt about it. If you take a look at our nation the way i look at it is delightfully United States with passion can. Is possible for a business perspective. You can imagine data to every rule air in the country. Can you imagine what we can do from a business perspective . This is about americas creativity. Its about americas ability to stay competitive and keep its edge. That goes from a military perspective as well as an Economic Perspective across the board. I think we are intertwined together and thats a clear message from my perspective. The president has pushed for a 500 1000 megahertz or more if possible. We are definitely pushing hard towards 501,000 that we understand. What does that drive . One of them is its driving technology, driving technology to be more efficient. How do we do this better, make it so were not a spectral on . The pcast message was clear, it spoke to both the federal aspects of it and the commercial aspects of it. So those are intertwined. How do we get better across the board so we use the limited spectrum that we have more efficiently. Thats good for all of us. Slide. I love this life because we talked about what we have to do. Try to weve all of the spectrum through, everything we do as a spectral impact whether its electronic warfare, whether its talking to a weapons in an aircraft, whether its moving stuff from fedex across the country, all of this touches the spectrum and its, we we this through and every time you had one more spectrum you have to be extreme be careful of what it touches. I think thats a critical part because you can start to interfere with each other, start to cause problems and you can have a real issue. Example, if youre talking about Missile Defense and you have a specific frequency where from a commercial aspect you look and tell you to use that very often, i think yes, thank god i dont use a very often from a Missile Defense perspective, but i have had a frequency when i needed otherwise you could lose thousands of lives. Thats a perspective that we have to understand that at the same time with the technology out there with a dynamic spectrum, we may be able to use that with a guarantee that the priority is when a Missile Defense, it automatically becomes clear. Those are the things were looking at. We were not able to do in the past. We were just on the frequency. In the future with technology we may not have to do that and thats a key use of it and well see that in many other aspects about the Spectrum Management. Slide. Right here is what it looks like. How do i get and maximize my use of a limited resource, have i make that happen . Thats where we were. Think about satellites today. I have satellites today that the Telecom Industry needs and i will put that need. Those satellites have been up for someone almost 30 just. 30 years ago we were not worried about the width of the spectrum from where we were in a particular arena. But to take a satellites down now and to replace them with a new satellite because i cant change the transmitter in orbit, would cost billions of dollars. How do i do that . How do i balance do not have to take and satellites like that and caused billions of dollars from taxpayer perspective, at the same time give a spectrum for the right people who need the right information . Slide. You can see the planes. Every single piece of part from cell phones to radar to weather radars to highfrequency, the beauty, from radars from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles all across this. How do i get the maximum amount of limited resource . What i will call the spectral reconstruction and thats exactly in a lot of ways what i see our nation right now because in some aspects were changing things around. The interesting part is the international peace. I brought that up in the beginning that we can go to domestic went all day long but just keep in mind satellites are whizzing right by getting fit which is across our nation as we speak. Other ships come into our harbors, all of a sudden. Think about from the military perspective. If im going into some particular area and im taking down the door i might not care what the spectrum is in that particular place but if im rebuilding a nation, if im in afghanistan or iraq or the philippines trying to take care of asurvival issues i want to be able to use spectrum that does not hinder their own efforts within the country. Glad to have an International Level of spectrum i can go into and use all the time without anything with their spectrum. I think that support for everybody to realize that we are seeing a normalization of some these things across the world affords the spectrum frequency. That also is from a business perspective because if you sell products, you can also do standard cell across the world or whatever it is youre doing, whether its a new kind of a land, or if some other type of a radio youre trying to sell. Slide. Heres an interesting comparative piece. This comes up a lot in discussion. I leave until i get the numbers and have these slides printed out for congressional, the first is the three gigahertz which they call the prime beach frontage. Because its something that our Technology Allows us to use very efficiently, if you will and it also has good distance coverage. It has good distance coverage, good penetration into buildings if you will so why your cell phone works in certain buildings of why Certain Congress to work as well. It might be frequency. Has to do with the spectrum. But we hear a lot about what the federal owned. The federal side to it, 14. 1 is allocated to the federal government on an exclusive basis at this particular point. Twiki uses half of that. Its less than half of that. Dod uses half of that. 54 issued between federal and nonfederal uses. We share today. We are pretty good at it so we are sharing is something that is happening today, the way we do sharing today i would argue in the way we do tomorrow is two different things. Much more efficient ways of doing it and much more automated ways of doing this that allow us to use that frequency even tighter. When you combine more efficient spectral capabilities of just the technology, and the ability to use any more efficient manner from a shared perspective, you can open up a lot of that beachfront property very quickly. On the second part we talk about the three to six gigahertz which is felt less second best beachfront property. Second most desirable. 8 is allocated on a federal exclusive basis. 18 is allocated for nonfederal. 74 issued between federal and nonfederal uses. This is important from a lot of perspective. Back one slide, if you would. To do this, forward slash, please, correctly, ive to take this into account and how im going to do. I have to take technology and how we will do the sharing in the future to make sure we get this right for all, federal agencies, not federal agencies in the government and for all commercial aspects. To get this right we can make this a winwin situation for all. Slide. Heres what were going with an individual effort thats happening right now. Its been an actual were the interesting one for my perspective. The original plan if you look up at the top, 17551850 was primarily military and federal assistance across the board. The plan was to go into the band to the right which is part of the broadcasting been. We took a look, spent a year going up and because thats normal way. We vacate spectrum and we move to new spectrum. Spectrum that is also vacated at that particular point. So the bill from dod perspective was about 13 billion. If you look at all the federal agencies across the board, it was somewhere around 17 18 million, all validated and verified numbers with multiple looks from different aspects. You have to think about this but if youre taking than satellites and truly vacating and putting of new satellite youre talking lots and lots of money. So from an auction perspective that wasnt going to be most likely to be in the best use of the money in that particular aspect and we would not get the. The auction requirements are 110 when you do an option. We would not have got to 20 plus. That was not accredited although an interesting piece of the puzzle, 17551850 this Telecom Broadband for other parts of the world. It is just not for the u. S. Right now. Interesting part of it from a dod perspective is deity just got finished leading 1710 to 1755. The interesting perspective of this is kind of a chapter my brother in over here, or that were supposed to just gather that been and will be no more moves for 10 years at that particular point. So we finished a march a year now but if you are now we are back doing this again. Its the right thing to do but the point is, its a never ending move. 17101755 which is finished and that was less costly because most of the equipment that we had in a lower ban we were able to reach him into the 1755 youre seeing to the 1780. So bottom line to the whole piece there, the 17551850 i make you sick. The bottom line was it was as causticostly to move as we expe. However, now we are in having to move again. It is more costly but we found some interesting ways to do. Take a look at the bottom. What we realize in the commercial industry came back and said hey, we dont want that all been right now. What we want is 25 megahertz of it, 17551780. How do we do this . We looked at compression was the first one. Cannot compress to the other part . We just cannot compress and out of 17101755. We realized after multiple simulations, a lot of engineers doing that, compression was not possible without large impacts. We didnt have the technology to do it right now. The second part of it was okay, what if we move part of our system and shared it with a broadband . I talked about vacating the broadcasters dont want to vacate that and have some open spectrum. So if we share in the particular then we can do this as a partnership, move ours out to 20 wen2110 and getting to that of e band per se, of the Telecom Industry, broadband people to get into the 17551850 can leave a couple systems are such as are satellites and other geographical sharing, if you will, a geographical shame because many are satellites are locations where frankly industry doesnt have a need for a lot of of broadband because there in the middle of nowhere, frankly. From that perspective its a winwin situation. By taking our highest priced systems completing them, small chunks of it, compressing parts of them into the upper part of the band and then moving the ones we can to the 2025, 2110, allows us to do a very good marriage of interesting needs and dod federal users needs and have a balance across the border this was a plan we came up with, never been done before. It is more risk, very different than vacating but from a dod perspective we realized that true beginning of spectrum, if you look at the spectrum reconstruction, its probably not going to be possible this year. We have to think about this in anyway from an industry perspective, they can provide the best profit, no doubt. At this particular time a combination of the fact we could move off a 25 and technology wasnt really ready for us to be comfortable from a risk perspective to like to do dynamic sharing on a large bases as well as some of the other more spectrally efficient systems, this was the right plan at this particular time. I believe in the future will have to go to a different approach and i think that technology is going to push back here and i think we are about five years off and we see on a largescale basis some capabilities to do this that will allow us to get more capability out of lets spectrum and lowest have a different approach to this in years two, when they come back for the next share of our particular spectrum. Which is already occurring in the five gigahertz band which i can talk to at the end. New spectrum strategy is necessary. So bottom line is we will have to do that in the future, no doubt about it. Slide. So what do we see . This is the strategy development. From our perspective we been too reactive, dignity. One of the first things i came in, i said we are just too dang reactive. We need to be proactive i in th. Destiny from an industry perspective for this particular spectrum, a need for dod. We need to work as a team and be more proactive versus reactive. These other pieces of the puzzle. Technology and driven by technology. Technology has got to be proven not just at the one, two basis but on a large scale. If i take technology and all my technology is working and it is a specific level and ready to deploy if i dont have that it is going to be years ago the must go together in conjunction with each other because a lot of stakeholders in the regulatory piece, that is something i did not understand, being on the field and making things happen we dont have as much regulatory when we are doing largescale fighting for the nation and internationally changing Frequency Band could take ten years so thinking about the regulatory piece that could be a driver more than the technology can. Stakeholders tie all of this together and the economics. The best way for us would be to move from a band a from the 1755 to 1850, economics said that is not going to be good for the nation as a whole. We tried to come of the more complex solution but at the same time it will benefit us and make us think about how to do this better and is already making us more efficient from the new acquisitions we are doing a new particular system we are buying. Then take a look at requirements the drive that and how we will change those requirements in the future. How do we get more spec relief kitchens while taking care of taxpayers bottomline, how do we do this and how we work handinhand with industry to make sure the systems we are developing are as useful for them as they are for us and vice versa. That is the key so how do we use those systems together knowing on the battlefields with receiving people in a situation like a typhoon in the philippines or whether it is a true battlefield or highintensity conflict, broadband data matters, it is important to understand this goes back and forth between history and the federal agencies. Here is our perspective how we will do this. From our side of the ballpark we do a spectrum strategy rollout on the 20th, the 20th of this month will come out talking about how we are going to approach this in the future so the first part is to have flexible spectrum assets. We see that as the future when we watch how technology is moving. We are getting there quickly, we are not their regulatorywise, everybody agrees that is the wave of the future and right now it is clear to us after this last spectrum discussion that is the way into the future. Regulatory adaptability goes handinhand with flexible spectrum access. We are going to think about how we do business in the future if we are going to use every single piece of that spectrum correctly. Operational edge nobody is key to us so for example i have a system out there that is only tunable to the set when we talk about that one frequency i cant replace an audit. That cant be in the future. I have to put something in orbit with multiple capabilities and frequencies or Software Defined where i can switch to a different band and not have to change it out on orbit. That is an example but theres a lot more examples of a you ave which can save thousands of lives in some places such as the philippines or what we saw when we talk about it in japan with the way of coming through. The bottom line is depending on the spectrum, we have to switch to a different band immediately so we can control that and have added a different band. Two receivers or transmitters, where we are going is a Software Defined radio where we say we are in this band today and going to disband and work and in country x that is open and we can use that to save lives. This is where we are going, why it is important to be proactive. Release scared of dominos delivery to my house. Driverless vehicle, they really are, they talk to the safety of life, peace of spectrum whether you are the flying airplanes spectral peace, the google call our or looking at the flying car in the upper righthand corner. Honestly i thought as a kid, i am dating myself, i thought for sure i would be flying with those things when i was a little earlier. The bottom, my middle daughter wants to be the first person on mars and she is adamant about it. She is 15 years old and pushing hard for that. So i see where our capabilities are going as far as the amount of data we again and the ability of you will to do things fur a theoretical perspective, it is important to take that data and manufacturing and build those things, that is the next great step we will see, that change in the whole fabric of our nation and the world and one of them right there. Heres where the tenets of that are. We have to do more sharing in the future. We got to do it right. That will require technology and regulatory piece and policy and were working hard to make that happen. Technological innovation is the key to that piece, culture change with everybody, all federal agencies and industry. We have to wonder stand from our perspective, from a d o d perspective this is harder, more problematic and when you are focused on ten things all over the world things are happening every single day from a d o d perspective and worried about the next threat to the nation, sometimes this doesnt have the same priority but it does matter from a lot of perspectives and it does make us more capable if we do it right. That makes us more capable if we do it right. Partnerships in the collaboration we are not doing this without partnerships in collaboration. There is a person in the audience to talk about the Public Private partnerships. That we have discussed because i think that is a key to the future out there. Proactive versus reactive. I cant even jump on that. Proactive has to occur on both sides versus reactive. Theres a global context to this, i am not sure i understood this but some parts of industry dont fully understand the impact of that particular piece to it but it also gives them a market too. Roadmap was near midterm, far term goals deliverable. What can we do today . What midterm and what far term . Dynamic sharing in the last spectrum change wasnt available to us from a technological side as well as the regulatory side. In exchange will be and that is a critical point. Governments oversight accountability, this has to be a team effort and we have to get rid of old think as to everyone stating their position and staking a line in the sand and we have to stretch all of our thought processes. The last part is the cooperative test bed, it will be the National Advanced spectrum and communication test network. One of the things we learned from recent issue we had on the spectrum is how to test something. We have someone from industry saying this particular thing and someone from dod saying this and other experts, how about we have a Clearing House of test beds that we can actually work through and have an environment where we have the test environment available to us, we can do a paper fee where they can come through and validate all the particular requirements that they have, validate all the capabilities to rule these things out and we can all agree that this test result is actually the rest the test results the week and make decisions based on that is that is one of the perspectives we had out there. That is the final piece of that slide. I will throw one slide up there at the end that i have up there because we will see this, one more slide, that is going to be our strategy, call to action, in an evolutionary way. I would like to change that to spectrum evolution in a revolutionary way. It is revolutionary way to think of it slivers is the way were going. It is the perspective on that and that will be later this week. That is part 1. That is a visionary peace. We are looking at implementation of that so that will be electromagnetic spectrum, integrated process, a lot of dod speed, bottom line is this makes implementable action. There is vision and implementa black man that will done with all our services and departments, how would we be proactive versus reactive in the future . That is the key that we are trying to do. I can give you example after example and that is all. I am open for questions however you want to do it. The strategies that have been rolled out. That is the cover. Lets go back one flight. You had one of your slides which is why i am asking it and implementation of the strategy. Our plan is to finish up on a 6 month time line and say okay, what we do, i will back up a little bit, we build out something when there is something new. We go to all the services and the department and this is the strategy and where were going. Does this make sense to you . We walk right through this spectrum. Once we adjudicate fat that could take months. And we have a common agreement, that comes out. Second part is the Implementation Plan where the rubber meets the road. Where d division that came out . You into it out and figure out exactly how you are going to do it . The example we did was vote secure commercial mobile cost area secure mobile columns and Strategy First and implementation of how were going to walk through the services. What did we look at here . Acquisition differently. Doing operations differently, you can walk through this and that 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. The implementation, you talkedabout near, mid and long term . That would be near to midterm and once that is done, what you think of as part b to a vision or strategy. Does that make sense . Go back the slide. General, what International Partners are you guys working on when you are reallocating and these new bands you want to move into, i you protected or anti jam resistant in any way . I am not a spectrum expert. The perspective, one of them is working with the International Partners we do that with the International Telecommunication union and the state department primarily. And all those folks go forward and you have the dod position and i should say u. S. Position that feeds into the u. S. Position. From a partnership, when you go into some place in afghanistan iraq or working overseas in the philippines, you go to those countries you work with the countrys government and they will be a partner for the local area forcing kinds of communications that dont interfere with the satellite part. The second part of the question was the anti jam. The frequencies going into some times are for example we go from 1755 to 1850 to 2025 to 2110. What you are talking about is not a grand jump in frequency so the same capabilities apply from an anti jam. It does take technological change but you do have the same capabilities. We are required to certify that through technology the same capabilities and the same operational allowances in the new spectrum and that is the certification. To answer your question, yes. Please. The European Space agency, generally you said you would say a few words, i would be interested to know what dots position is on the discussions going on to open it up to more and more groundbased users. The d o d position is a simple position. The u. S. Position is not the dod positions so my comment would be premature from that aspect but we are working through it and we are working through it from the perspective of how do we do this from a proactive perspective on this . How do we make sure we have the right technology and the Safety Systems if you wellmanaged at that particular point. How do we take care of our partners and that includes partners in europe as well. So that is the perspective at it and at the same time how do we get technology to move faster to allow us to do these things . That band is a difficult one. No doubt about it no matter where you are on the globe from that perspective and that is an important part of it. Going back to a comment, 20252110 ban, one of the reasons why we like that bent is because of the fact that overseas it is not a broad band band so from that perspective it marys of very well with other systems that if we went into other countries we would be able to use that frequency without interference from host country systems. That is why it is a useful ban from our perspective and better than the 17551850 band which goes back to 5 gigahertz. By virtue of the interference youre talking about because of some of the things. And i can guarantee you on that. I would be premature to comment on it even though i probably worked on it for two days of my weekend this weekend. Some guys are chuckling because they were with me on that. So cyberspace wires and routers are basically flashes of light and spectrum. How does your spectrum merge with the departments cyber way ahead . The electra magnetic spectrum is all a piece of the par. They go handinhand together. When you talk about white, optical. And cyber electronic warfare, all of that together are one part of it. It weaves everything through, that is the critical point. If we dont get it right. Cyberradio, optical. That will cause some kind of incompatibility issue or safety of life issue. All of those are connected to include cyber aspects. Okay. A special breed, i am not i wont comment on that. It has probably been the spectrum, the radio part, the communication part is a fascinating part. To be honest if you think about it from the communication pieces the most important part one flight across the world so after 9 11 when we flew across the world one of the number one limitations was the communication peace to make sure the right people we were going against and not doing the wrong thing so it indicates the weak point and the strength, so that is the aspect of where i got connected to this and on the right ever since. Thank you so much for coming out. [applause] thank you. That was a lot of data and that was good stuff here. That was good. What we are going to do now is turn to our panel of experts to go through this. I will introduce them briefly. We will have Additional Information on our web site. I will probably do this in the wrong order. Juliet snap is chief of the fcc office of engineering and technology, one of the nations leading experts on the Technology Part which we heard about. We have peter tenhula, Senior Advisor at in t i a, we go back in crime for a long time, probably getting involved again in this effort. We have stacey black, vp for federal external and legislative affairs. Between federal and legislative that is enough to keep anybody busy but we appreciate your taking time to talk and finally we have john hunter from t mobile, director for spectrum policy. What i would like to do is ask each of our panelists to give some brief remarks. We start with stacy and go down a row and take questions from the audience. Stacey black, please. Good morning. I would like to limit my remarks to the role procurement will take in what the general talked about, procurement will be a big deal. Technology is rolling along as the pointed out in his keynote. For example i noticed in one of his wise he had an acronym, emanual radio, it is actually an application for push to talk. In the old Days Technology has been around for 70 years, it has gone from two radios to talks, released to listen, all the way now to where we have an actual device that is a broad band radio that happens to have a push to talk application over it so it could be an iphone. Exactly the same thing, this radio required its dedicated frequency and is used in theater, and we see as a company that push to talk is what i call a low hanging fruit in terms of being moved to a broad band type of network, based communications, mobile to mobile, machine to machine types of communication, great applications where they are not Mission Critical but their logistical in nature and a great opportunity to move them to a more broadband environment. In some cases it could be commercial Broadband Network and in some cases a private Broadband Network. Such as new York City Police department did recently. Another application that was recently announced an Army Magazine last month is what was called the combat Training Center upgrade for the range communications system, installed in fort irwin and fort polk. What the system does is it is like a laser tag system where they have rifles and pistols and tanks and things like that. They actually install the 4 g lc e network on this basis to communicate and put all of this telemetry and voice communication in a coordinated effort and as i said this is all explained in the u. S. Army magazine. To give you some of ideas about it replaced two legacy land mobile radio types systems for range data management, range communications, and they built powers in these two areas covering 90 of the Training Area and now they are starting to use 4 gee devices so as i mentioned before, and i phone has 6 bands, wifi, gps, bluetooth, this 5 and the dollar device could be used in place of 1,000 device that was application specific for these combat training systems. As a result of that they doubled the number of instrumented entities in the combat Training Center battlefield. 6,000 dismounted entities, 5,000 vehicle entities, 5,000 Voice Communications systems, 350 observer Coach Training devices and 1600 target in viand engagement system is. Here is a great example of where dod has embraced commercial technology. Actually started working in a Public Private environment with a commercial broadband provider. To be able to accomplish their combat training mission. This is a great start but it takes a new way of thinking in terms of procurement because you are going from the application specific building an expensive, one of the kind device to now using a commercial offtheshelf system that may have more of an operational expenses opposed to a onetime very expensive capital expense but it is going to right way in my opinion. Thanks. I will focus my comments on what the general talk about specifically around cooperation and partnerships. That is so critical. We have learned a lot over the years. Personally i have been involved in the a w s clearing effort for 7 years now and i can tell you we learned a lot through a w s 1 working with the dod and other federal agencies trying to assess their needs and balance their priorities with market realities we are trying to roll out. Through that effort, we continue that and as many of you know we have the working group process that put forward unprecedented level of cooperation you are seeing. We learned a lot from that, that narrative system. You will find we talked about 1755 to 1780, some sharing, in the end we go pre auction, making sure everything gets set up but then operational lives the use of the spectrum. As we saw, we had some challenges but you got to work through those challenges, requirements on both sides and even today we deal with those issues. In the end it will be a collaboration, working with the agencies that will make this whole thing works. Had a great talk. I say that facetiously in the same direction. I have never seen closer alignment on the federal side and the non federal side with the appreciation we need to find ways to accommodate all of the innovative ideas, the growth and challenging the need for more spectrum, and they check their smart phones and get into the car, checking at home and so forth and what you saw on the screen, the Driverless Cars a little bit farther out but things where you get up in the morning and the device is checking how you are doing today, do you need to go in and get a checkup . This is enabling all sorts of new applications that will improve our lives in the economy. I want to say a few words about the tech talk, what we have been learning as we have gone through this process you heard reference a few times, just for some of you who may not be as focused on the details, why this is important, it is a piece thats adjacent to one of the major broadbands, a w. S. 1, we already have in our portfolio on the nonfederal size spectrum that would match up with a companion piece to expand that using what you have been hearing about 17551780. It was a long and hard road and we have a ways to go. A lot of work looking at a broader peace, 17551850. The difficulties of the reallocation and expense when compared to the benefits of lower piece really centers down the staff. There is a need to transition systems out of that spectrum, we found ways to identify ways to share with what will be there for some time. Part of the solution was sharing with the band of 2025 used for electronic news gathering is on the nonfederal side. Was not used constantly. There is space for the services to share and great cooperation between the broadcasters and department of defense and working up a way to share that specter mess part of the solution. What we have ahead of us is working on the transition plans and making sure parties understand, with the transition the going to look like. The second thing i will talk about is 3. 5 gigahertz, i agree that people view the spectrum of three gigahertz with the prime beachfront property, and a few temples or stones, and the federal size identified 100 megahertz of spectrum that would be made available for nonfederal use. What is there . The biggest thing that people focus on is offshore highpowered navy radars so the sharing was identified as having exclusionary along the coast that was rather large but this was all focused on ubiquitous wide Area Coverage wireless systems. The real issue in many cases for wireless broadband is capacity so people start focusing on small cells, low power cells put in place where you need to pick up capacity and already have coverage but not enough space. Once things turn there was a lot more interest on the nonfederal side and it chang the u. S. Had advocated a model based on dynamic frequency selection or dfs. It was brand new, it was accepted by the world. We came back, found out that it took a little bit more work than we anticipated, so why is this so hard . Because youre searching for signals that you cant always identify. [laughter] and just looking for a particular level to tell you whether something is there or not often is not sufficient. So it was really tough, and there were points along the way where it wasnt clear we were going to come up with an answer. So now fast forward to today. If your wifi technologies has continued to evolve, theres a new standard that youre seeing on the store shelves, the 802. 11 ac standard. Whats so magic about it . It can offer data speeds of above one gigabit per second, and it uses channel band bandwidths of 180 megahertz. There are a couple of lines that have been identified for expansion, 5450 to 5470. The difficulty is that there are different kinds of Radar Systems in there, and the techniques that were used before cant be used without some adjustment or some other change to share with the systems that are in there. And youve already heard the question there the audience, theres also the earth exploration satellite system in there. So theres a lot of work that we have to do to make in this happen. I tend to be an optimist. When you get technical people together trying to solve a problem, you often can come up with a solution. Maybe not all the time, i but more often than not, you figure out a way to do it. So ill stop there. I just would add that, you know, as we go forward, you know, were going to continue of to have the exclusive use and the unlicensed models, but as were searching for more spectrum, sharing is really going to be the focus. Trying to figure out how we develop techniques to evaluate both an analytical and testing side on these new sharing methods, its going to be a real challenge for us as we go ahead so that we dont stand in the way of these things coming out, our testing processes have to be at least as fast as the technologys rolling out. Thanks. Great, thank you. Peter . Thanks, jim. Thanks for having me, thanks for the reunion and looking back at fond memories that the last time i was at the old location, i guess, at csis i was working with paul on Spectrum Policy Task force at the fcc. And back in 2003 i did pull up the report from there, and a lot of its kind of interesting to go back and revisit. I recommend everybody do that. Take a look at so paul and i came over and briefed former secretary schlessinger and mr. Galvin who are leading this effort at csis to do this report. Jim invited us over. I cant remember if that was before or after we had run into each other at our kids school, you know . But we also add that in common. Had that in common. I went back, i just pulled it up when we were back there and kind of looked at the recommendations. Its amazing how these things come around. First recommendation was white house oversight. Well, since then i think theres been at least three president ial memos on spectrum and a new spectrum policy team established within the white house. Another recommendation was a spectrum Advisory Board at ntia we have a commerce Spectrum Management advisory committee. One of the members sitting here in the front row, jennifer, you know . So i think that serves the bill. Theres also an Interagency Group called the ppsg, policy, plan steering group, i believe its called. Jenna wheeler participates in that with the cia from dod and all the other federal agencies with spectrum. So theres lots of interagency collaboration. Reinforce the international functions was another one that we had a little discussion about that, how thats maybe still in the works. But i wont go into that. Research support for spectrum innovation, that was one of the things that struck a chord, and i think that is a key focus, and thats one of the things that ntias work on in conjunction with the National Institute of standards and technology, and were putting together a center for advanced communications which Jenna Wheeler talked about the nastin initiative which would be under that center for advanced communications. So thats being implemented. And last but not least the recommendation from csis was a National Spectrum strategy. And, wow, thats kind of interesting. Couple days before dod implemented you know, announces their strategy which, you know, i think is important that it be, you know, technologydriven and then so these guys mentioned centered around, you know, collaborative efforts and spectrum sharing. So its interesting, you know, these things dont die easily, and these recommendations even though they were made a long time ago, you know, ultimately, ultimately, you know, somebody picks up and implements them. One other point i just want to touch upon regarding incentives. And spectrum. And then how incentives apply to the federal agencies. Those of you stayed at home thursday and friday because of snow or if you didnt, you missed it, there was an announcement that came out of the white house, the office of technology, of science and Technology Policy, ostp, about a new report authored by the science and Technology Policy institute. It was a survey of a variety of incentives or approaches, recommendations for federal agencies to relinquish or share spectrum. So they spectrum policy team in the white house put out a federal register notice seeking comment on that report, and id encourage, you know, folks i think its about a 30day cycle to take a look at that report. Its quite lengthy but very comprehensive. Hits on all the major areas that, you know, would encourage or facilitate sharing, relinquishing of spectrum by federal agencies. Things like user fees, spectrum innovation fund, even applying a spectrum Property Rights regime for federal agencies. And the kind of oldfashioned command and control approaches to improving efficiency for agencies that have over the years, you know, have been proposed by various, in various documents, papers, things like that. So id encourage folks to take a look at that report, respond to the questions in the federal register notice. One of the questions thats most interesting kind of personally to me is the practicalities of some of the incentives. Federal agencies are a different animal than the companies that are on the other end of the table. The things that drive them, what ive learned in the last two years ive been back in the government at ntia is their incentive is to perform their missions, you know, in the best way possible. So how can we get them to and i think Jenna Wheeler talked about a lot of ways that can be done through Better Technology, obviously, through money doesnt necessarily translate into the mission, especially if the folks that are doing those missions dont have control over that money. So what are the ways. And in a Property Rights type scheme where youre giving agencies more freedom, you know, more autonomy over how they use the spectrum, how they control the spectrum, can they sell it, can they buy it, can they, you know, divide it up just like the private entities. Im kind of reminded that when i worked on the fccs spectrum secondary markets policies, even the fcc did not grant secondary, you know, Market Authority to all users of the spectrum. It was really limited where theres exclusive use of the spectrum. In the federal side, that doesnt exist. They really, theres no one Single Agency that does not have exclusive rights to the spectrum. Its all shared among the agencies or between federal and nonfederal organizations. So id encourage those who were who are interested in this area to provide views on some of those incentives and those ideas. Thanks. Thanks, peter. He reminds me that one of the lessons i learned the last time i did spectrum, it was a lot more fun than doing rf than ew. The lesson i learned was you really need patience. So we are making progress here, and when you think about where we were ten years ago, were in a lot better place. But i want to challenge the panel with a question. Not sure who it would be fair to start with. Thinking about where we want to be in ten years, what should the spectrum environment look like in ten years or a bit longer . Whats your goal here for where we want to end up . Maybe you could start with that. Stacey, student to go first . Do you want to go first . We could circle around and do you last too. [laughter] well, i think, you know, over the next ten years theres going to be a lot of new technology thats going to be introduced. Obviously, therell be spectrumsharing technology, and i think youll see a lot more like the three dot five initiative where theres the use of the shared access, databases and things like that. Thatll be very important. There actually may be some softwaredefined radios that are Cost Effective enough to be consumer based. But then also i think that youre going to see more smart networks, and thats whether its even in a wifi environment where everything is connected to a controlled plane, that way there is some sort of master smarts that is actually controlling the communications across a variety of platforms. And that will, in effect, make the communications a lot more efficient, and i think thats what well see in the next decade. Yeah. I think to add to that ive said this before in a number of forums, but i think the spectrum sharing, certainly, its an evolution, not a revolution. I think as the general pointed out some of the technology there, is there today and were seeing Great Strides with those advancements. But by and large, there are a number of challenges we have to work through with regard to spectrum sharing. But in the next ten years, absolutely, i think we are going to start seeing more spectrumsharingtype technologies particularly given the three dot five band that julius talked about. I think, you know, theres concepts of databases sensing, i think on the five gigahertz band the challenges you have with that 11ac and the ability to sense a wider bandwidth can be problematic in trying to figure out how you would make that work. So i think there are going to be other types of applications with, you know, with five gigahertz. If its not dfs, then maybe a database is more appropriate. But i think moving forward with, i think, the 1755 to 1780, i think, you know, we are going to see some sharing there with the Satellite Operations geographic based, but then as we move forward, i think from an industry perspective were going to get an opportunity to showcase some of the features that lte has to offer. And, in fact, were going to be doing a demo with one of our vendors, and weve invited dod folks to participate in that demo where were going to share that next month. Thank you. So in the end, i think the goal is that were getting as much out of this space as we possibly can. That the folks who come up with innovative ideas, new industries have that opportunity to develop and implement them. From a technical standpoint, we often will talk about the spectrum below three gigahertz, but when you really start to get down into the weeds of whats there and you start to understand that all of the low hanging fruit, so to speak and it wasnt so low to begin with [laughter] has been picked. And so youre down to what i mentioned before, you know, 2700 to 3700, and you start to look, oh, great, whats there . The weather radar system that you look at on Television Every Night to see the storms coming through. Thats whats in there. Well, lets just move them someplace else. You cant do that because of the physical characteristics that they need to be able to do what they do have to be in these parts of spectrum. So you say, well, how do we share with these things . First, it matters where they are. And most of them are in places where people are. And so this isnt, you know, the classic geographic separation where the one system is out in the middle of the tez cert, and all desert, and all we have to do is stay 200 miles away. Were down to doing things like, well, can i operate when the radars pointing in the opposite direction . I can tell you that its incredibly complicated and hard, and it points to the need when you start going down this path of Detailed Analysis and testing. Because were past the simple stuff of, well, were just going to reallocate spectrum, and a new systems going in. Were really kind of at the cutting edge of technology and what can be done to gain access and value out of that space. Well, to look ahead ten years, id need to look back twenty. And look at the transitions that weve kind of gone through and the trends that i personally have gotten scarred from. But the improvements that have been made more, because im the lawyer, i guess, on the panel, i will talk about the kind of regulatory and the process. It still takes an awful long time. I mean, the process you know, and throw in the International Component to it, and youve really got a long time. So i would like to see in the next ten years some improvements in that process, and the way that can happen is really through whats been started fairly recently as more and more kind of Public Private Partnership Collaboration approaches to regulation get the issues on the table as early as possible, get the folks in the room as early as possible, hash out these issues. Where theres differences, figure out a way to resolve them. So its really about, you know, what kind of process improvements can we make, what kind of institutional things need to be reexamineed, and were starting to do that. Were creating these new i talked about a couple of the groups and organizations, the new one, one being the center for advance communications on the research and development side. The testing and evaluation aspect of that is very, very, very crucial. So to make, you know, leaps and bounds towards that aspect of the technology would be great. Because looking back at the various transitions from 2g to 3g, 4, you know, 3g to 4g, you know, some of it was technologically driven, but some of it, you know, was driven by the fact that, well, you didnt need to come pack to the regulator come back to the regulator and get permission to go from, you know, one generation to the next. You did need to come back to get the spectrum, you know . So if theres a way to figure out a way to, you know, sharing spectrum, access to spectrum, improving the process for that, thats what id like to see. Sure. So peter set me up for one thing i wanted to mention, because i agree with him. The processes today take a long time and often are us from freighting for all frustrating for all of the parties. Ive seen things go on for two or three years arguing whether an out of band limit should be 10 db tighter or not. Not always, but often if we get the parties sitting down together and the technical people, theyll work it out. Ive often used the example of the medical Body Networks which was seeking to share spectrum with aeronautical tell metally systems, and for two years it seemed each side would basically pin the other about its technical analysis. And once we got them sitting together in a room, it took some time it was more than a year but they kind of figured out a way with a combination of operational controls and coordination and technical limits, the two could share the same spectrum. And so on friday we released, i should say Diane Cornell whos headed our process reform group, we released a report on process reforms at the fcc including some of these ideas that peter just talked about, trying to find alternative ways to address some of these issues that come up. So weve invited Public Comment on that, and i think it was dont hold me to it the end of martha we et as a deadline march that we set as a deadline for comment. Id just encourage you since this is really a collective matter for the entire community to take a look at whats in the report and, of course, if you have ideas that you think might be alternatives or better than what weve got out there, our ears are open. Thanks. Let me ask one inspired by those remarks which is about the International Side which weve heard a fair amount today. Where do we stand in terms of other countries thinking in terms of how we move forward on spectrum . What do you see happening on the next work, where do you think the u. S. Is most effective in driving an International Process . I know thats sort of a general one, its a little off topic, but given how much the International Theme has come up and given that we do need to coordinate, i wonder if people want to give it a try, and maybe this time well start with peter and work down the row. Its, its definitely not my area of expertise, and im more of an observer on this. But there are definitely a cadre of very dedicated folks in this, and thats where collaboration does occur. To come up with, you know, u. S. Positions especially. But also, i think, but in my experience looking at other countries and seeing how they have evolved, typically you see kind of the following the lead of the u. S. Other times, you know, maybe theyre driving some of the things. Like i would say spectrum sharing, you know, has definitely taken off, you know, globally, the concept. And various areas like europe has really been focused on kind of a licensed approach to sharing. Like licensed shared access or authorized shared access, the concepts that theyre exploring. So if, you know, back in the old days, you know, you looked at within the United States the states as kind of the laboratories for experimenting with new approaches, its now Different Countries or regions around world that are experimenting with different ways of providing for spectrum access. We ought to kind of learn from. I mean, the u. K. , for example, experimented for a long time and developed the spectrum fees for their government users. And how they managed the government. So weve looked at that. The report i mentioned from stippy evaluates that. So we look at the other countries as laboratories but as collaborators too. As jenna said, this is a Global Spectrum environment, and pretty much you need to be on the same page. But at the same time, you know, let others to kind of take the lead and see if it works out and maybe follow with that. Thats a good approach too. Great. So at the technical level theres a lot of work going on internationally. Universities and so forth. So you go to a conference, as peter and i and im sure theres others here go to, called dice band which has been going on ten years . 2005, yeah. Yeah. Its a bit surprising how much work is going on on dynamic spectrum access around the world. And, you know, the normal process is you first see these things in the laboratories and in the universities, and then assuming they still have merit, they bubble their way up through the policy ranks. So ill just focus on a couple of things. Tv white space in the database model that we adopted here in the United States, its been embraced already by a number of countries around world that are deploying systems either on a trial basis, experiment someplace operational. In many of these countries, they actually have more white space than the United States. And if youre trying to send signals out for broadband at a distance, its ideal. So its an instance where something that was born in the United States is catching hold in other parts of world. Of the world. The International Process is slow to change, you know . And i think its understandable. You know, so while at times it can be frustrating, why is it moving so fast, you have to keep in mind theres huge investments in the systems that are there today, and we should be making sure that those systems are protected. The classic model has been the kind of stove piped allocationed. Thats the way the International Cable allocations is set up. So when you come to an operator or people who have, are stakeholders in a block of spectrum and say weve got a great idea, were just going to put somebody in who will get out of your way, theres naturally first reaction of, well, that puts my system at risk, and its not clear to me that its actually going to work. And then, of course, in the end how does this other than making the community better, how does this benefit me . So i think its going to be a long process internationally where when people start to see benefits to their economies from access to these systems and that the technology also works, it will work its way into the International Process. And, in fact, i think theres been a task group thats been looking at softwaredefined radio, cognitive radio. So it is getting more attention internationally. Yeah. I just want to i think from a commercial perspective, you know, we kind of look at this, in many cases it can be like watching paint dry. It really does take a long time, and i certainly appreciate all the work that goes into teeing up these bands, the mobile brand. And i go back to, you know, to 2000 when a number of bands were teed up in the wrc and assessed for mobile broadband, and subsequent to that i think with the president s 500 megahertz initiative, the work thats ongoing at ntia, going through the process of evaluating each of those bands, it is a lengthy process. And so, you know, the fcc has the tough job of trying to balance the federal needs with the commercial requirements, and so that, that is certainly difficult. I think on the technical level, you know, in preparation for the this upcoming work, you know, a number of joint technical working groups that are working to assess a number of bands that are going to be put on the agenda. But challenges are abroad, and i think its going to take a lot of work on both sides. And peters right, if the u. S. Does lead, i believe, the world many this regard, other countries tend to follow our lead on it. So hopefully the process will speed up a little bit more. And ill just add to the fact that the International Standards community and the role that they play in this so critical. I mean, carriers by their very nature are looking for the greatest economies of scale that they can get. And if you can get bands that are harmonized globally, that makes our Device Manufacturers much easier to build devices that are affordable. So i think this is one of the things that we all have to be especially those as we go into work and things like that the participants need to be thinking through how do we make sure weve got harmonized bands and, obviously, the least expensive devices that we can get. Thats a pretty robust agenda there. Let me see if anyone out in the audience has a question for our panelists. Go ahead, please. Thank you. Carolyn brandon from georgetown. A question for any of the speakers, has there been any discussion or evaluation of the ability to use some of the spectrum in the relo fund for some of the r d Research Related to the answer of can certain things be cleared versus what are the best sharing opportunities . Yes. Many thank you, peter. [laughter] oh, you want [laughter] theres been several proposals to expand the use of those funds. Why not reinvest auction proceeds into the development of new and Better Technology . It totally makes sense, right . Right now the Spectrum Relocation Fund that was created by the enhancement act of 2004 as amended recently in 2012 only covers costs for relocation or sharing. Those costs that are covered did expand a little bit to cover, like, planning and those some research and development. But yeah, or its a great its of those ideas thats been around. Its just a matter of implementing it because theres lots of demands for money, you know . And that goes to the point, kind of really one of these we talk about the process and stuff like that, these processes are such a drag sometimes on resources, and its finding the resources to get these things done. You know, whether its do a test to go out and conduct tests, to some modeling, simulation. I mean, 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 some kind of Software Package to do some modeling. I was like, oh, my god, you know . And this is for one of the bands of the future that they had a lot of stake in. So its not just the government, its a lot of folks that are, you know, hurting for money and resources. So any way to kind of filter that back into r d testing, that would be great. Anyone else . No . Or, go ahead, john. Yeah, i just want to add i think, you know, with regard to doing the testing and the studies, i think from an industry perspective, you know, we actually embarked on a monitoring activity to assess the type of admissions that were uncovered in specific bands and figure out what impact whose those admissions have on an incumbent dod aircraft. So i think the results from that analysis were very telling, and were hopeful to begin the process of sharing that with the Regulatory Community and dod alike. And, hopefully, as a way to, you know, move things forward with regard to how can you, you know, better share between federal and nonfederal assets. Thanks. Well, i was going to follow up on that by saying, you know, i think thats a great idea. The idea of using the srf for this might actually be a good input to the whole spectrum incentive rfi. Because if you think about that there are toddies incentives for an agency to do testing and expend the resources to try to figure out either how to move out of a band or to share it, but a case in point going back to the combat Training Center example that i gave before, had there been money available for the u. S. Army to have done their testing, that program might have accelerated itself twofold easily. But it took a while. But the point is that it was still a proposal that was brought to them that they finally were able to test and get behind it, and now theyre implementing it. Again, thats probably a way of getting around the disincentives for relocating or sharing. Jennifer, please. Jennifer warren, lockheed martin. I guess my question is mostly for peter, but others as well. The leadership the dod is putting forward in this new strategy, are you seeing that reflected in any other federal agency . Because as you and general wheeler noted, there really is no exclusive dod spectrum or very little, so its shared with other agencies that may have significant Infrastructure Investment or operations. Thank you. Yes. Oh, okay. [laughter] its, ntia on behalf of the federal agencies writ large is also reexamining its kind of strategy along these lines. So, obviously, it plays in, aligns tightly with what is going to be announced later this week. So i wont go into any kind of the details on that to not get out in front of that. But, again, you know, like i mentioned before, it really should center around, you know, technology and innovation but also collaboration. And so its about, its continuing what weve kind of been doing in the sense of bringing the agencies to the table and being on the same page, seeing how they can Work Together like in the example with regard to one of the bands, 1755, Law Enforcement surveillance activities. Happens across several federal and state agencies. So is there a way that they can collaborate on developing the next generation of Law Enforcement surveillance applications and technologies. So its really about, you know, getting the right people in the room talking to each other and a strategy really or a tactic more like of using those kinds of crowd sourcing for lack of a better term among agencies in the commercial side. So its, thats really kind of the focused strategy that id like to see. And there are definitely other agencies, i mean, theres other agencies that are very interested in, like, the center for advanced communications that weve been developing. So therell be all participate theyll be all participating in that. I think, yeah, i would agree with peters short answer, yes. You know, youre actually seeing it, i think, in some of the grassroots in the agencies. You know, having gone through this exercise focused here on commercial wireless, but there are plenty of other services where we are looking at sharing spectrum. Important point, though, to mention is it needs to be a two of way street. Twoway street. So i think when the agencies look at this and say, well, okay, if youre going to believe in sharing, it cant just be sharing my space. It needs to also be providing for the benefits to agencies of being able to share space elsewhere on the spectrum that, you know, where they may not have a current allocation. And weve actually issued proposals to do just that in a number of places, you know, certainly one you know about, you know, relative to commercial space launches. And its been very important, i think, to the federal government to have an upgrade in their allocation for their own earth stations that are using commercial satellites. We proposed to allow federal systems to actually, well, federal users to have access to the space in each even the spectrum were talking about here, and we also proposed to allow three dot five. So i think there really has to be a change in the way weve looked at things on both sides. We dont have any final questions, ill ask the analysts oh, do we. Oh, go ahead. Sorry. Good morning. Courtney robbins with [inaudible] industries association. And i suppose this question is mostly for fcc, though anyones free to jump in. It has to do with Unmanned Aircraft systems kind of as a specific example of an emerging technology that is going to require spectrum sources. General wheeler had a couple pictures of the dominoes pizza uas and all this other stuff. But the jokes aside, this is going to be a technology thats going to, you know, have thousands of aircraft in the skies before too long, like were thinking before 2020. And faa has a congressional mandate of 2015 for full integration. Yet we dont have one of the details thats missing from faas road map is how were going to handle frequency for line of sight and beyond line of sight. So im just curious to know if while dod has its spectrum assets, civil users do not. And what is the plan for addressing addressing that . Thank you. Well have different [inaudible] depending on whether the pizza is going to a private sector user or [laughter] yeah. I think we have a lot of work ahead or us on this ahead of us on this. First of all, i dont think people appreciate the uass or uavs come in all shapes and sizes. And have all sorts of different applications. So you have to be concerned about command and control, youve got to be concerned about in some cases were looking to have we, i talk collectively the realtime video. So we have a lot of work ahead of us in identifying exactly what the needs are and where the appropriate places for them to operate. And i think sharing is going to be, i take as a given. Were going to have to figure out what can they share with. So its not going to be easy, but well find a way. And i just know although its fcc, its clearly the federal government as well. Yeah. Im glad you brought that up, because it also demonstrates the fact that the demand is not only on the commercial side in your traditional broadband mobiletype applications. Theres a lot of applications, federal and nonfederal, you know, in other contexts. And supporting uavs and other Unmanned Systems is a huge, huge driver for this. And so its, youll see for example in the dod proposal for using 2025, you know, it suggests, you know, using smarter technology, multiband capables. So capabilities. So the newer applications, newer approaches are going to be more dynamic and more capable of finding the best spectrum available when and where its needed. And so you cant theres not one single scenario, you know, for those types of platforms. Theyre at various altitudes, various locations, various times, and theyre going to have to be very, very spectrum agile. And so theyre going to be driving a lot of that Technological Development as well. So i dont see the same old dedicated band approach. There may be one or two dedicated bands, you know, for the safety, lifecritical command and control links for those. But video download, payloadtype applications coming from those things, yeah, your going to have youre going to have to find a lot of spectrum a variety of places depending on where it is. And also ill just point out that the way that the supply chains work in these various industries are so different. And they dont even cross each other sometimes. You look at the commercial global industry, the suppliers there and look at the suppliers in other radio markets. They dont even cross. So you have to figure out a way for those to do a little crosspollinization. With yeah. I just want to touch on the number of bands. I think it kind of coi said sides with what general wheeler was talking about with having platforms with multibandwidth capability. What we found during some of the working group projects, the uav platform itself is a mull i band platform, and it, actually, had become somewhat agile in terms of your ability to move that system to other bands without impacting, you know, incumbent federal operations. So i think as we would look to, you know, Frequency Bands for uavs, i would hope that we would continue that same process and making sure that these platforms do have a multiband capability. Thank you. [inaudible conversations] we need a new way of thinking [inaudible] weve heard pretty frequently. We need to think about how the process can be streamlined, but also how it can be guided by a policy thats shaped by both National Security and economic concerns. And general wheeler pointed out how intertwined those are, but theres still some significant differences that we need to think about the balance between the two. We talked a little bit about incentives, we talked about technology, we talked about r d. The Technology One always strikes me as sort of Silver Bullet the this some ways for spectrum problems. We always say, yeah, well fix it because well have a new technology. Which i, like julius, im an optimist on, but youve got to invest in it if you want to get it. So something to think about. And finally, we talked about slow process, particularly when you throw in the International Side. These are all good topics. Ill close by asking anyone have any final words of wisdom they want to share . Ill start off just by saying that, you know, the sharing is not the only solution. You know, i think that the mobile operators and the whole auction environment which is very good for the economy and the treasury and all of that needs to continue, and thats going to be done by vacated and cleared spectrum that can be sold at auction. So while i understand the report is promoting sharing and i think weve heard general wheeler say from his perspective sharing is really going to be the future, i think we as an industry and as an economy need to be thinking about how can we find more available spectrum to auction and provide the commercial mobile operators. Yeah. First off, thanks for having us. No, i think its, it is a balance, you know . I think to julius point, you know, looking at the bands that are out there, its a challenge, you know, i think for the federal government to find spectrum and make that available for mobile broadband. But i do think that, you know, as julius pointed out that we are moving in the right direction. I think both industry and government are moving, forging ahead and trying to figure out how we can make this spectrum utilization work better for everyone. And i think, you know, as i said, it is an evolution. The its not going to happen overnight. Were seeing some sharing capabilities were going to be able to employ in the 17551780 band. So if we can continue to focus on the improvements that are facilitating access to those bands, then i think thats where sharing becomes, you know, more common place as what were seeing today. Thank you. Yeah. I had mentioned i think those, the models weve had in the past of the exclusive use where we see opportunities will still be pursued. But i also think as you look at the spectrum chart the challenge you have is the services that are there, where do you relocate them to . And thats what drives you often to sharing to see if you can actually get value. [laughter] by value, i mean not just having access to spectrum and saying, well, i got 100 megahertz here, and all it is i cant use it any place that theres people. Its got to be something as we go through this process that we, you know, actually is going to serve needs. So i think were going to continue to pursue along all fronts, and, you know, its just not going to be any easier. No words of wisdom but maybe just words of ignorance to offer is that you dont, you know, we dont know how, where Technology Ten years ago, whatever, we could not have predicted necessarily where we are. We would have probably predicted, yes, that the industry would be back for more spectrum for exclusive use. And i think its easy to predict that some parts of the industry would not, you know, favor a sharing approach and would like and i think that a lot of federal agencies would like to have exclusive access to spectrum as well. But you just dont know where technologys going to lead you. And so if you have the incentives and the drivers for technology, basically, to develop and make sure that any regulatory barriers are out of the way, you know, then the limit, i think, the futures limitless. So lets come back in probably ten years, you know, after your next report, and well reflect on that and see where your, how your recommendations are doing, jim. But thanks for having us. Well, i hope we can speed the process up a little bit more than ten years, but please join me in thanking our panel this morning. [applause] thanks for coming. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] if you missed any of our coverage of this event, it is available in the cspan video library. Go to cspan. Org to watch it at any time. Live coverage will continue at 1 45 eastern today with a discussion on u. S. europe trade. The european commissioner for trade will deliver the keynote address and talk about the latest developments on a transatlantic trade deal. Also taking part in the constitution, jon huntsman, a 2012 president ial candidate and former u. S. Ambassador to china. President obama will be talking about fuel efficiency standards this morning at a supermarket distribute center in suburban maryland. Live coverage begins at 11 20 eastern on our companion network, cspan. Also cspan will be live at 2 eastern with a Brookings Institute discussion on u. S. russia relations. Russian experts will talk about president obama and russian president putin. The New York Times correspondent peter baker is among the speakers. Again, thatll be live at 2 p. M. Eastern on our companion network, cspan. Tonight on booktv prime time, careers in washington will start at 8 eastern with james carrville and mary matalin. And then keith ellison, the first muslim member of congress. And after that, dan bongino, life inside the bubble. Its booktv in prime time all this week while congress is on break and, again, starting at 8 eastern. Tonight, our conversation with Tennessee Republican senator bob corker on his early career in business. I had, you know, 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. When i graduated from college, i ended up being a construction superintendent. And so after about four years i, you know, had built some regional malls around country and learned how to build projects, and id saved 8,000. So when i was 25 years old, i went in business. And i started doing a lot of repeat work, Small Projects where i could be paid quickly, and the company grew at about 80 a year the whole time, ended up building Shopping Centers around the country, retail projects this 18 states. In 18 states. So it was an energizing, it was a great place to be. I mean, the energy when you would come into the front door, itd almost knock 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, have done several things since. I ended up acquiring a good deal of reality, and through the years through portfolios and other companies, but anyway, i loved being in business. Matter of fact, i have loved everything ive ever done. And later well talk with democratic senator Amy Klobuchar on being in the senate and the mother of a teenaged daughter. And she called me, and i picked up the cell phone right as im walking into the senate, and shes in tears. She says, mom, they said we cant wear a bikini at the pool party, but you can wear tankinis. And she said and dad doesnt understand the difference between the bikini and a tankini. And i said get him on the phone right now and as im walking, i walked head into Lindsey Graham and knocked him over, and i thought im not doing this balance very well. And i think for any mother it doesnt matter if youre a senator or, you know, if youre a nurse. Trying to balance the family and the work, you never do it perfectly, and anyone that says that they do is wrong. American profile interviews with senators bob corker and Amy Klobuchar, tonight starting at 8 p. M. Eastern on cspan, cspan radio and cspan. Org. Defense and National Security officials sat down recently to discuss security on the Korean Peninsula including north Koreas Nuclear ambitions and cooperation between china and the u. S. To pressure north korea. The institute for koreanamerican studies hosted this hour, 15 minute event. Thank you, daniel. You know, its quite ironic, im glad you mentioned the fact that i was here four years ago, and as people remember four years ago to the door, it was snowmageddon. And i actually got stuck on my way home for about an hour in the snow taking a back alley down somewhere in washington, d. C. , and i will never forget the opportunity. The other interesting thing was at the time it was a very slow news weekend, and so this presentation got repeated coverage. And people had nothing else to do but stay home and watch relatively boring, unexceptional speech at the time on the north Korean Nuclear program. I came as an Intelligence Analyst that time, and i come in a more difficult hat as a policymaker, so ill try to scope my comments and resist the temptation to get into an overanalytical piece. Theres an old adage that goes you dont know where youre going until you know where youve been. Its a close cousin of those who dont learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. And when you deal with a difficult issue like north korea, you face a challenge of having to set a policy direction and define a set of Guiding Principles to undergird daytoday decisions. The truth of this adage becomes strikingly clear. Not too long ago i used the expression predictably unpredictable in describing pyongyangs use of surprise as so ip grained in their diplomatic playbook as to really no longer be surprising. Of so let me today suggest that for the policymaker, north korea may be termed transparently opaque. Transparently opaque. North koreas an actor whose efforts to use mystique and surprise as diplomatic force multipliers are now so established as to be no longer particularly mysterious. I actually went and dug through my open source archives to find the 1999 korea central broadcast system commentary on the revolutionary exploits of kim young ill which kim kim jungl adding, its no accident that even the enemies call the generals experience political art up predictable and legendary. I would assert, however, that after 20 years of diplomacy with the dprk and 40 yores before years before that of sustained interactions, this is what many people forget, 40 years of sustained interactions up to that point through the mechanisms of the military armistice admission in our daytoday interactions with the North Koreans that we have amassed sufficient empirical evidence to not be back footed by surprise, baffled by opacity or blinded by socalled black holes. So today what id like to do is take a bit of a retrospective look as we examine future of north korea and our policy within the context of where weve been and how that impacts the fundamental principles of our policy and the direction it will head in the future. In the early 1990s when we first embarked on the most sustained interactions with north korea following the armistice and outside the confines, there was not much to look back on as our diplomats explored possible ways ahead with the dprk. We had no negotiating record, we had no tests of pyongyangs reliability and dependability toly up to agreements to to live up to agreements with the United States. So at this time this warranted moving forward with what would become the agreed framework not on blind hope, not on faith, but on what might be called exploratory, confidencebuilding principles or a test thereof. As you remember, the agreed framework in 994 came about following concerns over inconsistencies between north Koreas Nuclear activities as they declared to the iaea in 1992 and the results of the iaea inspections once the inspectors got on the ground. And the intent of the agreed framework was to bring a halt to the projection of fissile material and through the iaea inspections resolve the difference cans between the north korean declaration of 90 grams or so of plutonium obtained through reprocessing of what today claimed to be a handful of damaged fuel rods. The data initial iaea inspections yielded at the time and, of course, estimates by analysts and observers that north korea may have actually produced enough plutonium for at least a weapon. But more fundamentally than what its meet objectives were, the agreed framework exhibited an effort to test that confidence could be built between two adversaries at what i would say is a critical point of confluence of three major strategic arcs in the history of north korea. The first would be the emergence of north koreas demonstrated, intended ability to produce fissile l material and pursue a nuclear capability. The second arc being the Power Transition that we were witnessing between kim ill song and kim jungil, the first of its kind in north korea, and finally the third arc being the emergence of a postcold war world, and north koreas existence within that postcold war world. In other words, the norths Nuclear Ambitions were becoming clearer, its internal situation was in transition, and its external environment was drastically changed. Aggressiveness, vulnerability and uncertainty all intersected at one time. The agreed framework, as you know, halted peru tone yum plutonium production for nine years which is which was no small achievement, but what went unchanged was north Koreas Nuclear am bigses which we know in retrospect. The framework never allowed the access to the facilities necessary. It continued to design and test high explosives during the duration of the agreed framework. And by the end of the 1990s, north korea appears to have become, appears to have pursued a Uranium Enrichment Program undeclared. The 2000s, meanwhile, witnessed the sixparty era; an aggressive and sustained diplomatic effort went into finding a way to create a framework for moving to