Thank you, everybody and im very pleased to be back here with some friends and colleagues in the telecom industry. What we hope to do here is further discuss what weve discussed a moment ago but first let me introduce this group of experts. First we have the former head of an tia a former senior staff around the House Intelligence Committee and among other roles the executive director of the policy coalition. To my immediate right, chris who i think i worked with in cybersecurity and communication5 years. He has a vast folio and at t the small start up company you may have heard of. Just about every Security Policy issue that the Company Faces and also the chair of the policy coalition. To my immediate left, john hunter who is a technical expert on standards, please correct me if i used the terminology wrong. A combat veteran who started off his career as a officer in the marine corps. John had a some combat experiences that directly pertained to some of the issue as we are talking about today. Finally, Patrick Walsh has a host of spectrum and Technology Issues and verizon. So i just want to kick things off and turn to diane first at the highlevel, commercial strength and National Security, diane worked for chairman mike rogers. The very first if im not mistaken the very first u. S. Government entity that publicly stated they constitute a security threat. So like me, diane has worked on the part on the Security Side and also the commercial communication side of things. So a very highlevel question how do you see that relationship, commercial, strength and National Security do you see those as to bifurcated things were together overlapping . They definitely connected and the concept of Economic Security and National Security is well agreed on between all parties. I think theres some concepts in washington, d. C. That get used often and thats one of them. The race to 5g often used. I think we need to start peeling back the onion a little bit more and discuss that means. What does it mean for economic, u. S. And economic power to underpin National Security and why it is important that the u. S. Dollar as the reserve currency for the world . Its because it puts us in a position where we are able to lead. It allows us to lead in standard bodies and manufacturing and deployment and its so incredibly important not only for our own fiscal future but for our allies in order to bring them into the fold so they are making smart decisions along with us and i think sometimes when you have discussions people do tend to follow along different lines and i think the verbiage on this issue sometimes gets a little bit dangerous when you have people talking about planes falling out of the sky, and if it is just dropping calls and as someone said its more than a phone call it, its the data, its collecting everything. I think its so incredibly important that we do events like this where we are able to bring together all sides and talk about how to Work Together to advance the economics of the United States and the National Security of the United States. And it happens and it happens often and weve seen this on ships where policymakers have come together to say semi conductors and manufacturing is incredibly important. Congress appropriated 50 billion. I think that its time for wireless to have our chips moment and coalesce all policymakers about how important it is that we remained dominant in this conversation we have its because weve remained so dominant for so long i think it is a tough conversation its not going to get easier as we go along or as we move to the next. But its important to figure out how to move together and have these conversations. Its not a zerosum game. We all band at the end of the day when we can agree and move forward so again thank you for having this conversation and to be able to communicate or move the ball forward. A lot of this issue and i think that its particularly the case for the wireless carriers is about supply chain and having a diverse set of choices among trusted suppliers so again at a high level and then we can get into of the United States is trying to do at the world radio conference but before we get into that, can you articulate from the Company Perspectives whoever would like to go first how do you see the future of the diverse supply chain and are you concerned the spectrum policy might have an effect. I think it gets down to the global harmonization if you will. These are global manufacturers, state manufacturer equipment for countries around the globe and when we limit ourselves here in the United States to specific bands or unique frameworks if you will, a good example would be and others would argue that that is not a novel approach to making spectrum available but then on the other side of the clan is the fact that youve now created a technology that produces the utility of the spectrum because of some of the conditions you put on that so when you start peeling away those that could use globally i believe youre going to find some hesitancy on the global manufacturers to produce that equipment if there is only a small set of customers that actually need to use that equipment here in the u. S. So the important thing is we look at the Global Landscape to understand where are the sweet spots of the spectrum being used and how can we find a balance to reallocate some of that for commercial access but at the same time understand and appreciate the National Security concerns are amount of some of these Critical Military systems, mid band spectrum touching on their Radar Systems and so i think there is a way that we can do that. I know we are looking into studying a lot on how we can share with and that a ban, but i would say you also have to be realistic and pragmatic and understand when the sharing does not work we need to change the vernacular. I think in the study thats being done today it is all about coexistence. Sharing on the same channel. How do you do that dynamically. A lot of the things that are being studied from that perspective dont exist and that the technology is years away to come into fruition so i think that there is a way to again change the vernacular of what sharing means. If it isnt going to work from the cochannel perspective, then we need to look at perhaps partitioning the ban and reserving a majority of the spectrum for military use cases but at the same time looking at the portion of the band thats internationally harmonized and figuring out a way that we can reallocate that for commercial use. Can you describe the differences between the dynamic sharing and other types of socalled static sharing, temporal . Its the ability to sense the presence from another system and then shift to a good example of that would be wifi the dynamic frequency selection. Certain military systems it senses the presence and moves to a different channel to avoid the interference. Again we dont have that Technology Today and commercial wireless and then there would be the coordination the system whereby a particular user could have access to the spectrum a percentage of the time whereas the other so theres a timebased approach and then the geographic approach is much of what was tried in this concept where the military identified what they call the cooperative Planning Areas where theyve deemed that they are going to use the systems for training and a different geographical areas that they will have to coordinate to make use of the system so theres a lot of ideas around how we can do this to make this work but i would add given the power levels we are talking about, hundreds of megawatts its difficult to find a technology that would allow that to work so i think you need to start looking at other ways of sharing to bring that to fruition. To answer that same connection between spec demand supply or diversity and then we can begin to circle back to what do we do about it . Its very important and as we look at the opportunities with having an auction and making the spectrum available as a reason for the carrier to go out to their sites and upgrade their equipment so they kind of work in tandem as the Technology Evolves and new spectrum becomes available we can take advantage of that. So that allows us to reduce cost and deploy much faster. I think it is very similar to us. Weve had a long discussion for going on years now about how to diverse apply the talks on the supply chains and reinvigorate the u. S. Manufacturing of the telecommunications products. In order for those businesses to thrive they are looking for deployment. We talked to a lot of companies and so to see that deployment it really requires entities like the National Carriers who ultimately deploy some of that equipment and the reality of the situation is theres only two reasons its either because you are refreshing the equipment to do that to the Lifecycle Management or putting new capabilities online so you might be out there deploying new radios that requires spectrum so it basically becomes kind of the reason why you would be out deploying to make new radios that relates to when would you see the deployment of things like this at any kind of scale so they do go handinhandin massive push much less money its not just chump change and enormous diplomatic and political efforts to push the suppliers and advances the diversity. In your view do you think we can get to where the u. S. Government wants to get on trusted suppliers and without more spectrum that is commercially licensed and harmonized with other countries . Theres two reasons to do that, refresh or additional capabilities. At the end of the day if you dont see these in the u. S. Theres got to be investments. We have to prove the technology. It was to break out the issues around vendors into there were still things that need to be done. Youve got to have a reason to do that if you want to see the scale deployments theres got to be additional spectrum online so they have a reason to go out and deploy that the scale. We have been. What we do is we advocate to policymakers on things to help bring to scale its the top way to get them to happen at a quicker pace. We were very forward thinking. They are doing Amazing Things on this space and its imperative on this. With the world radio conference china is supporting harmonization. The United States is supporting 80 less, so china is going to dubai with a pretty aggressive effort to align the world on its preference spectrum. Are you concerned that that will create something of a spectrum island as some people put it and the globally harmonized bands will kind of carry the day with where the standardsetting goes and the suppliers build and tell us on the technical side and the policy side how about plays out . I appreciate and understand the perspective of the department of defense they have National Security systems in the van and if you look at the state to play on the spectrum allocations i can certainly understand why the u. S. Government and in particular the dod would be concerned about how that plays out but as was mentioned earlier, this shouldnt be a zerosum game. It shouldnt be us versus them so i think what you have to do is theres spectrum out there thats being advocated for that china is going to put on the table and then theres a portion of the spectrum thats also harmonized with existing bands so understanding that theres spectrum out there that cant be reallocated without disrupting National Security operations is something that i believe we have to offer but when we do that we need to do it in a mindful manner that does not put the United States at a National Security disadvantage visavis china and other military capabilities. I appreciate that but i come from the point of view that we can and must do both because Economic Security is equally as important as National Security. Going back to the same thing that we mentioned earlier if youre going to build a product if you are a vendor trying to build a solution you can use around the world to achieve the scale we dont have the harmonized spectrum bands then the vendors are going to be stuck with a mission to build the products for europe and asia and how does that work and can they achieve the kind of scale necessary, so to me both the availability end of the harmonization is critical to the supply chain because if the u. S. Wants to revitalize like the Manufacturing Base in telecom then there has to be an understanding. With the dod and the sales office and in particular the secretary of Defenses Office in the past collaborated very closely and now we are looking at the low gigahertz and its those partnerships where we are all sitting at the table and have honest and frank discussions where we realize theres a lot of commonality involved and we can create those solutions. You think its possible, not just we can come together and work this out . Not a pollyanna no kind of view of things . We have an existing framework in the spectrum that has been active in 2003 is a fantastic way of creating this Virtuous Cycle if there is a band that is identified for commercial use there are federal incumbents in that and a portion of the auction can go to upgrade their systems. They have to still be comparable but they give the money and they are not impacted on the appropriations side. Thats worked brilliantly in the past and we think we can extend that Going Forward about we need to the authority back from congress. John mentioned and i will tease that out a little bit john mentioned the acronym the americanmade band innovation team. And tia and others to figure out a way to reallocate that spectrum so wireless carriers can operate in a manner that will not diminish the utility and others that youre looking for and when you start putting draconian conditions on spectrum bands where youve got to reduce your power, and minimize where you can deploy geographically, that creates problems from a deployment perspective and youre also disenfranchising many other users access to this. In some case its urban and low environment that are impacted. So the process took a pragmatic approach of looking at i believe its 34 areas across the country. Identify the types of operations in those areas for this particular band and crafted rules around how industry would gain access in those 34 areas. Outside of those areas youve got awful Market Access on a partial economic area called peas and that auction took place. We participated as well as at t and we were able to find good markets we can deploy spectrum and we are in the process of deploying today so despite the challenges we have with the ambit process and trying to coordinate that thats going to continue to be a work in progress. I was taking it back to the work we did during aws three where it took time to work with the department of defense but over time we were able to get into areas where we once were foreclosed access. Its going to involve a continued dialogue. We need to start thinking of that type of of how we can make the rest to that type of thing will make a to make that spectrum available when we start looking at what were trying to share with and i cant stress that enough. Were being asked to share hundreds of megawatts of power that come out of rail systems. We transmit in kilowatts. Kilowatts is what the industries trying to dvd from our side is great but only to find out where getting massive interference in our direction is not going to do the process well i said we need a different approach and the past process figure out how we can look at both sides. The past process was something set up. Its a partnership to advance holistic spectrum sharing in from 3. 123. 45 so as part of that process its only looking dod assets. So we think going through that process, its been a great collaboration with dod, the Defense Industrial base. Academia as well as the Wireless Industry in trying to find a way when youre locally looking at interference one way not interference back towards wireless in, it creates a false narrative that somehow this is going to be able to work when reality is the interference coming back to industry is not going to make a viable situation longterm. Your suggestion is participating. I know everyone is eager to make sharing the work. But we shouldnt take a square peg and try to pound it in a raw round hole when sharing will not work so if you provesharing will not work cochair perspective , were using the spectrum at the same channel the same time. If you proven that cannot work then what do we do with that situation. You have to change it in an accurate way in what spectrum week means. Were studying 123. 5 organizations, bad 77 starts at 300 megahertz so why not offer up 3302 3450 to be part of bad 77 and then recognize its below 3300 down to 3100 should be reserved for dod operations which by the way is not globally harmonized from a 3g perspective so i think theres a way to figure out how we can share this and move forward by protecting National Security equities as well as industryinterests. Is anybody optimistic about when opportunities like that . Ill just leave it at that. Does anybody hopeful about the possibilities that will be from that priority. I think as far as i know the reports that we released in february and august i dont think that there were any surprises.