House, the supreme court, and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. And around the country, so you can make up your own mind. Crated by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local or cable satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Peter and Michael Orielly is one of five commissioners on the federal communications commission, and he is our guest tonight on the communicators. Welcome. I want to get your Immediate Reaction to the Net Neutrality case. Commissioner orielly im still digesting the decision from the court read it is quite lengthy. From the court. It is quite lengthy. But im generally pleased. They seem to have found the right landing spot on a couple of decisions. There are a couple of pieces i would take issue with that will articulate that in coming days. Peter well, one of those issues that has been reported already is that it doesnt preempt states from doing their own thing. Commissioner orielly as i read the piece, its not a proactive preemption structure. It still allows challenges to states where the item would be in conflict with our rules. It will lead to more statebystate challenges, casebycase challenges, than the overall, overarching one i was hoping for. Because what you are going to see is a number of states have already acted in doing certain things i disagree with. And youre going to see others jump in, and having 50 different states pull us in different directions, some with Net Neutrality one way, some with Net Neutrality another way, is not what the structure should be. Its not interstate commerce. Its why we have an interstate commerce clause, and its not something they have expertise in. And my definition, my structure, my analysis of the architecture, there is no basically intrastate traffic on the internet. Peter well, joining us to help drill down into this case and other issues is gopal, our guest from cq roll call who covers technology and telecom. Gopal thank you. Interesting you talk about the Net Neutrality case. What are your concerns . You talk about statebystate than they would be potentially litigated on a statebystate basis. What do you see than . What do you mean by casebycase and what do you see is the top issues you would confront . Commissioner orielly well, look, it depends. Some states have gone after the determine side. Some have an entire regime based on rules we struck down, replaced with our recent action, so i dont know what the particular state activity would be, but if it runs counter to our policy we would likely challenge that activity under our authority. So it would be under a statebystate basis rather than, here is the governance for traffic on the internet and Internet Access and broadband access, and we are going to have to deal with it at the federal side. Now were going to have to get more litigants, more lawyers, probably more legal challenges. Gopal you already mentioned states are looking at differently. Can you lay out how they have already been shaping up . Commissioner orielly it depends on the state. They all have a different nuance to them. Thats exactly why our founders havent established a state commerce clause. Its for that situation where traffic is interstate in nature and now you have 50 states pulling us in different ways based on their peculiarities in the state. Like i said, some are going after procurement. Some go after the full enchilada. So we try to provide certainty. We try to answer this question proactively, which is the right activity and defensible. I think the minority opinion was articulate it pretty well. It didnt win at this juncture, but there is many more rounds, i am sure. Gopal how does it play out . We are now on the verge of the 5g era. How do you think this decision and the way the court framed it play into how the 5g architecture comes about . Commissioner orielly in fairness, i only had an hour with the decision and havent digested it yet. It does get to the issue of preemption, the matter i have talked about. We need preemptive activity to have a fulsome 5g rollout. Some want to govern the wireless side of the equation and i envisioned that will be challenged. Its already been challenged once. We take further action, that will be challenged in the courts. So its a long litigation i had a lot of activity for lawyers. Peter in these early hours after the decision, the California California can move forward at this point, correct . Commissioner orielly i think what you could say their reading of the decision has been proactively preempted, but were still going to have a challenge to that decision, as well as others that those affected. Peter do you think that the fcc, the majority on the fcc, will challenge that . Commissioner orielly it has to. It absolutely has to. Otherwise you get the lowest common denominator, whatever state wants to be the most active, aggressive, backwards looking from a Net Neutrality perspective will become whatever he has to follow. Its not something you just offer in one particular area, it is a network of networks. Providers are trying to offer service nationwide, not every instance, but most instances you are Offering Service nationwide or in many states. A boundary of a state which may have been decided hundreds of years ago, based on geography or some military conflict, i think thats where one decision goes this way and one goes that way and its just artificial. Gopal i want to talk a little bit more about the 5g aspect of your work and the commission. Theres been a lot of criticism in the last several months of how the commission has gone about auctioning the spectrum, and some of your colleagues on the commission have also said it has been focused too much on the socalled high end of the spectrum, and not enough of the midband spectrum. Is that a valid criticism . How do you respond to that . Commissioner orielly look, i disagree with the criticism because what i have tried to do is address the issue. I spent the last three years working to make midband a priority of the commission. I spent a ton of time in the Previous Commission in my early years working on highbandwidth tom wheeler and getting the right portfolios out there. I had a number of conversation about mid bands. I was one of the early people to recognize we have to spend time on midband. I was out there screaming mid bands early and helped change the process from within, working with colleagues, working with the chairman to get midband. Thats what we start to see. We Just Announced the auction for pbrs last week. Gopal in terms of working with other agencies, talk a little bit about that process. Is that process working as it should and it has in the past . Or is it breaking down and there is an coordination between different agencies . Commissioner orielly each administration is different. This has been more contentious than in the past. All spectrum issues are more complex. They arent easy decisions anymore. Every band we look at today for new Wireless Service is something thats going to potentially alter somebody else, whether they are nearby or in the band today. We have to deal with that reality. That makes some agencies jittery about things that they use the service for. We are an independent Regulatory Agency that has a statute that governs our activity and we are also governed by the record. We respect agencies and their views, but their licenses are governed, in some instances, by nka, and work through nka. Thats how we treat others in the space. Gopal so, speaking of those differences and how they get worked out, there has been a lot of reporting i and others have done on nasa and noaa, both saying a decision by the commission to allocate one of the bands of 5g could interfere with weather forecasting. People from the fcc have said thats not necessarily the case. Can you help us understand where the differences could have emerged . Was there a different set of models used by the commission that the agencies didnt understand . How could those differences have emerged . Commissioner orielly look, were looking at a protection standard and what is the right landing spot on a protection standard . We had agreement among federal agencies for a number of years and just before our federal auction this year on the 24 gigahertz, they raise their hand and said we have differences and were going to take them internationally, wrc 19 in egypt. We disagree with that analysis. Were talking about passive bands that are adjacent and this is something our technical folks have gone through, what the needs are. I found that her studies were lacking or troubled. In one instance, they were counting on a sensor on a satellite that didnt even exist. I have difficulty with what they raised and certainly theyve used the political process to further their cause and it is more difficult to get possible resolution in the matter. Peter so, what is the agenda for the next set of auctions . Commissioner orielly well, look, were moving forward to auction off midband spectrum. Were working hard to complete the broad deck to complete the process on cbrs, the auction starts june 2020. Were working hard to include a resolution on c band. We hope to have a resolution by fall. The chairman is optimistic for this fall. I think at least 300 megahertz are going to be available for new 5g Wireless Services in the United States to complete globally with other countries that are trying to outrace us to positionin the premier in wireless technologies. Well have a 2. 5 gigahertz auction at some point. That will keep us going for a while. We will operate in auction as it relates to universal service to mixer subsidies we put out to make sure broadband gets to the hardest reach parts of america are done in an efficient way and were just waiting to schedule that auction. Peter is that to address the urbanrural divide . Commissioner orielly it is. Its not just urbanrural. Different pockets in the u. S. Dont have service today. Most of those are in rural america. Anyone who doesnt have service should and were trying to make that available. Gopal we talked about 3. 5, which was Just Announced recently. Some colleagues on your commission have said that needs to be advanced, and we shouldnt wait until next year. And in fact, some of the midband should be auctioned ahead of the more highend spectrum in the pipeline. Do you agree with that, that we should sort of speed up . Do you agree that the midband auction should be advanced ahead of the other ones . Commissioner orielly i dont think at this point we would change the timing. We have announced a date, therefore we have time for people to raise capital, make Business Model decisions, work with partners, figure out offerings, things of that nature. But have i articulated internally that we should have sped up the midband auction . Absolutely. Ive made that point publicly and privately. But once a decision is made, and we have an option scheduled for december of this year for bands 39, and 47, once those are in place, we have to move forward. Gopal you talked about midband and the need, but is the criticism valid that if most of the United States 5g network is going to build on these high band waves, it ends up being more expensive and then it could potentially exacerbate the ruralurban divide because Telecom Providers are not going to go into sparsely half and populated rural areas with the millimeter wave. Is that a valid criticism . Commissioner orielly i dont think the heart of the 5g network is going to be all high band. I think the heart is going to be midband. We are trying to move forward as fast as possible with midband. A number of providers already have midband spectrum available and have low band that they are dragging into midband capabilities as best they can. Midband has some limitations on distance and the technology is improving on a daytoday basis. Im not sure i think in certain urban studies, high bands will be wonderful with what they will offer. They might not be the best thing in rural america, certainly in the short term. Thats the reason for my push on midband, to make the situation better, try to work with what we have, work to progress the situation and not just throw bombs. Peter commissioner orielly, there has been some experimentation and 5g by different companies. What do you see and when will it be readily available nationwide . Commissioner orielly weve had. Ome its more than just testing. Weve had some deployments. Its a small scale at the current time, but its exciting what its going to be. Were aware of where it may take us in wireless, but its going to be a slow progression. Because in the past, a new g will replace the old g. In this case, 4g will remain in and 5g will be built on top of it and 4g will continue to advance in terms of speed and capabilities. Theyll work simultaneously and in partnership. Youll see it develop and does things mature, all of a sudden you will realize, im getting 5g speed. But its not going to be Something Like a eureka moment that everybody gets turned on at the same time. Peter what is the fcc approach when it comes to new antennas for 5g . Commissioner orielly were working hard with localities and states that want to be helpful in deploying the networks of the future on the wireless side. And there are many. I would say most localities and states recognize the benefits and that their Consumers Want these technologies. But there are definitely some that are not of the mind and are trying to use the opportunity to either control power or money. They want to extract money out of the situation and charge thousands of dollars for different connections. Thats not acceptable, in my opinion. I have testified in front of congress that we need to preempt those situations under the authority given. A number of likely challenges, it has already been challenged, and well see where we land. But at some point, i imagine congress will answer the question, whats our authority in the space, and if they want us to have a preeminent position in the world in terms of wireless technology, we may have to continue to push localities that are not doing the right thing out of the way. Gopal you talked about this decision on equity polls that the fcc made, that has been challenged, one of the challenges is new york. There were also members of congress who have said the commissions decision was taking away states rights. How do you expect those differences to be resolved . Commissioner orielly look, i worked in regional provisions in my past life on capitol hill and have regard for the statute and what it intended at the time. I have difficulty when people fight on the issue of aesthetics. That was something that was left to the congress to have decided on a federal level and is not something every localities going to say, is that pole pretty enough . Thats not acceptable. Same with our frequency in frequency emission. That is dedicated by statute to the fcc, in addition to our medical entities. Its not something that were having a state by state or locality by locality deciding what is the rf emission acceptable level. In terms of placement towers, we are trying to build Networking Services to americans who really want them. That causes, you know, some strife with some localities, either trying to control the power or want the money. We have to deal with that. Thats why im here at my job. Peter commissioner, it sounds like its been a frustrating part of the deployment for you. Commissioner orielly very much so, something ive worked on for almost 25 years and forth. Gopal you brought up earlier this big conference coming up in egypt at the end of october. Im told it is like the United Nations of the world radio spectrum, all of the countries of the world getting together every four years. Commissioner orielly kind of like the spectrum olympics. Gopal spectrum olympics, even better. What do you expect to come out of this . Im hearing this will be a pivotal gathering where all the countries will decide how they will deploy 5g, and what spectrum goes to respective countries. How do you expect to come out of this . Commissioner orielly look, i was at wrc 15 and have a good basis of what i expect out of this round in egypt. Im hopeful the World Community will recognize the need for additional bands for mobile services globally. There are benefits in terms of harmonization, cost to manufacture, consumer benefits and ease, all the things that come with having a harmonized band globally. But if the International Community doesnt come to a resolution in egypt, and we arent able to make more bands, the United States will look at other countries and has in other instances, two countries that are of a like mind, to move forward separate. We have a real opportunity to get very proactive and very aggressive and have new bands available for wireless growth in the world. If the process doesnt work, the United States will likely look elsewhere in a different structure. People consider the difference between the u. N. And other structures that we use today. Gopal so youre saying theres a possibility that in this conference, there may not be unanimously and the United States might have to seek other countries . Commissioner orielly the United States is in a good position to work with colleagues and come up with resolution on a number of bands that are important. You mentioned 24 gigahertz. We will make resolution on that in our region. And i think we can defend those decisions globally. But absent that, if it doesnt go that route, the u. S. Will look forward because were not going to stop wireless progress in the United States for countries that, in my estimation it was based on competitive reasons, they werent ready come they didnt have the capital to move forward in the United States did because they werent ready at the time. Peter commissioner orielly, what about working with our geographical neighbors, canada, mexico, the caribbean . Is t