Economic opportunity of jobs, of Educational Opportunities for our kids and these counted cuttingedge innovations we hear about cognitive cars to cities and the internet wont work or wont work well without 5g. A lot of things we have to do right and government to secure u. S. Leadership in 5g. One goes to your question which is spectrum. We have to put out a lot of new spectrum bands to enable all of these great new inventions to work on a 5g platform. See ban is one component of that which touches on what we called mid ban spectrum. The secure 5g leadership we need low ban, mid ban and a high ban. This announcement is a good win for the u. S. By pushing more mid ban spectrum out there into the marketplace. Host isnt that mid ban spectrum being used by Satellite Companies . Guest all the spectrum we had is being used by someone right now but the question is how do we make sure we put it to its highest and best use. The idea were putting forward at the fcc is a way to protect and preserve those existing uses while also opening up that ban to more 5g use cases for consumers. It will be a real win not just for the incumbent licensees in that ban ultimately but for the American People that just want more connectivity. There has already been substantial pushback by congress on this. Guest we seen a little bit of that but when you step back i think there is broad and bipartisan support for securing u. S. Leadership in 5g and we will have to jump through hurdles along the way to get there. Back in 2014, 2015, 2016 u. S. Leadership in 5g was barred from secure. There were other countries, china in particular that was putting up a new cell sites which is another component of what you need to do for 5g with the densify the network rate they put up sells 12 times the pace that we were in the u. S. We turned things around. Starting in 2017 we modernized our infrastructure rules and have been putting more spectrum out there. The results speak for themselves. The u. S. Has the first commercial build out a 5g in the world. We secured the largest initial build outs of 5g, 14 cities in the u. S. Got 5g last year and about 30 something cities today and we will go over to 40 cities by the end of this year. We will have twice the percentage of 5g connections as a china so its a good Success Story and along the way we had to be aggressive and take bold action to do that. Host at what point will the fcc start considering this proposal and when will the Public Comment time start . Guest aspects of this we have been working on for about a year, year and have already written expect another fcc vote in the coming weeks or months and my goal at this time is what we call an auction of this spectrum in 2020. I think we are solidly on track to do exactly that. That will mark another good win for american families. Host lets bring david mccabe into this conversation as well. You alluded to the bull case that will transfer in these industries and we all hear a lot of those who regulate it but what is 5g that has been overhyped . Guest im excited because the same dynamic you are talking about is it too much hype or is it not or is it something we seen play out throughout the generations of upgrade in technology. Think back ten, 15 years when we shifted from 3g to 4g there were a lot of articles and analysts writing at the time saint 3g to 4g isnt worth it. Consumers will cut back then copper homed telephone lines and upgrade to fiber and to 4g. The challenge is today but hard for most people to envision the transformation and the disruptive inventions that will come with 5g. Think about your own life ten years ago. Think about how you got across town pretty you pick up the phone, call a taxi, wait in line, pay exorbitant rates and out with 4g and smart phones you have a goober, lift, right on your phone. Think about banking ten years ago. You had to go to a brickandmortar bank stand and a robe line and talk to a teller and out we have been mo and square on our phones. We are on the cusp of seen that same type of transformational shift in 5g that we saw in 4g. Two people who question will it be worth it or are we overstating it . That shows a lack of vision and the same lack of vision we saw ten years ago when people werent sure about 3g to 4g. Part of that falls on us as reagan leaders. We have to talk about 5g in a way that relieves pain points in peoples daily lives. Thats what we will see with 5g. Its not just faster speeds, quicker downloads but it will open up take Virtual Reality and augmented reality. Right now a lot of people like myself dont like going to the Grocery Store. There are substitutes right now with online ordering options but with 5g it will open up new opportunities. Imagine being home putting Virtual Reality goggles on and then it been transported to your own Grocery Store walking down the aisle that you recognize and reaching up and grabbing a cereal box off the shelf and taking out a piece of fruit and feeling it whether you want it and sticking it in your grocery cart and virtually and have it delivered to your house. These are the things that 5g will bring that a lot of people right now are struggling with the vision to see. You do have cases where carriers have gotten out over their skis with at t they had a quote 5g offering but it was not quite whats the fccs role in making sure carriers are being honest with consumers about the service they are getting . Guest part of this goes to the approach weve had with mapping and making sure there is Public Disclosure about coverage areas, accurate coverage areas and realtime information for consumers about fees and commercially acts you can download to check but also our role is to cut through the regulatory red tape and enabled the private sector to get out and invest and build. Host to tie this back to the sea band and what david was quizzing you about the wall street journal editorialized this week that because of the chairmans proposal on the sea band and spectrum that the unfortunate reality is that mr. Pyes auction probably wont happen for years and u. S. 5g will lack because of it. Guest there are a couple of factual points in a piece that i disagree with and if those factual pieces were right that i would share the concerns expressed there. Here is the facts. We are committed to conducting this auction in 2020 so a lot of the concern that is driving that piece has to do with speed and theres a concern they could take three, four or multiple years for this auction and that will not happen. Once you realize that this makes a lot of sense the way we are pursuing but whether its a private auction or public auction both we will take place in 2020 and that is more than enough to help secure u. S. Leadership in 5g. Host is the transition to 5g going to be as consequential as the analog to hd transition that we went through . I think it will be more so. I think regulators right now are struggling with a lack of vision. It is on us in government as competition authorities to understand where the industry is going or two passed the test. We got to be skating where the puck is going and not where it is today. A lot of people underestimate the pace and nature of technological change. We are seeing that lack of vision with 5g. Its historic and intrinsic to who we are as humans. Think back, henry ford supposedly said that if people asked him what they wanted they would have said faster horses. The first cars were called horseless carriages. We see some of that same lack of vision with 5g and not seen how truly disruptive it will be and that ties into our work. Sprint and tmobile, for instance, theres a transaction weve been reviewing at the fcc and some people have voted against it saying to date we are already living in the golden age of wireless. I dont think so. If you show a little vision and see where this industry is going right now cable providers are adding more wireless perk order and wires. Wireless first play with 5g is to add more choice and competition for inhome broadband. When you see where this market is going and that vision that only does the sprint tmobile transition make sense but shows you understand where technology is moving. Which regulators are lacking vision . Guest right now if you take sprint tmobile transaction there are some at the fcc who have voted against it. They said exactly what i just did which is that we should preserve the status quo because consumers have what one of my colleagues described as the golden era of wireless today. I think consumers arent happy with the status quo even though weve made a lot of good progress. I think they want to see disruptive, new competition. Whether its those of us of the fcc or antitrust authorities that are looking to put the brakes on some of these transactions when you see where the market is moving a lot of these things make sense rather than the government operating as a restraint on that disruptive competition for their state attorney general lawsuits right now trying to block this merger of sprint and tmobile which in my assessment aced on the record would lead to a strong third competitor to the market leade leaders, verizon and at t. Consumers want to see that increased choice. What makes you think this will lead to a stronger, competitor and not just a third competitor instead of having two smaller competitors . Guest this transaction for the first time would enable sprint and tmobile the combined company to have the same scope and scale as the rise in at t. Up until now they fed far deeper Spectrum Holdings, stronger balance sheets, larger infrastructure bill, more customers and by combining in the fourth provider you can finally have someone of the same scope and scale. On top of that they committed to buildout 5g299 of the u. S. Population. Thats a big win for u. S. Leadership and they have committed to bringing inhome broadband and ic home options to 28 million households and Spectrum Holdings of [inaudible] which was back to this mid band discussion which is part of 5g as an underutilized up till now and now theyre able to put that spectrum to use for American Consumers but thats why i think it will be a good win. The fcc was early to say the steel was women among the regulators were not approved it or not approving it. Doj took more time and how confident are you give cc was aggressive enough in getting conditions out of tmobile and the doj was able to come in . Guest the review at the fcc lasted well over a year. Far beyond the 180 day clock we tried to meet on these transactions. It was a lengthy review and we dug into the record. Ultimately i didnt think it was necessary to get the additional remedies and divestitures that that apartment of justice did but again what you saw at the fcc was we defined the market for 5g using a market definition that we first adopted in 2008 before 4g was built out. When you look at competition through that back looking pencil thin theo the fcc was clear that the transaction is still in the Public Interest but when i push for somewhat unsuccessfully is for the fcc to modernize our approach in our definition of the market so when you do that when you see the market in which providers are competing in this new 5g era the Public Interest benefits of the transaction get even bigger. Host in your view, commissioner, has the att merger of last year laid out as it should . Guest i think were seeing a robust competition and when i look at the finish line in terms of Consumer Choice and options for me its not the first time we see 5g built out in new york or San Francisco but we can only measure success when every communion in this country gets a fair shot at nexgen conductivity. The markers for that and have spent time out of dc and been in about 33 states and my time on his job and in sioux falls, south dakota they will be firing up 5g in that city now. Thats 143 largest city in the u. S. Ive been to small towns like fishers, indiana and a small cell walking tour when they had six d small cells in the town at a point which larger cities like san jose still had zero. When we look at progress and success we have to measure it by those types of the stories not just being focused on big coastal cities alone. Host there has been pushed back from localities with regard to the fccs approach to putting up these small cells. Guest thats right. I fully understand that. The approach we adopted at the fcc again stepping back 5g requires a massive build outs of new infrastructure but these are the 20300foot towers that those consumers are you stupid these are backpack size antennas they go on poles and utility poles. What i learned from getting out of dc is putting time in those towns with sioux falls, fishers, indiana was that theres common sense policies put in place there that were resulting in accelerated infrastructure bills. We build on those policies and put them in place at the federal level. I get that when someone acts in dc to put guardrails on local decisionmaking there will be pushed back from state and local entities and we are seeing that as expected but what surprised me here was we had dozens of mayors, county officials, state leaders that spoke out in support of the fcc decision because they get the big picture about what 5g bills will bring to their community. Host is it important that the u. S. Beaten china when it comes to 5g mac why does it matter . Guest i think so. It matters in a couple of respects. Right now u. S. Has secured Global Leadership in 5g and where the strongest 5g platform in the world. Its a platform that requires significant investment of capital for capital is finite and can move around the globe. When you set your country up in a leadership position that will track the capital needed to buildout this nexgen internet infra structure moreover, the countries that lead with a strong as 5g platform has an edge in terms of Economic Dominance for the next decade. It will be a top priority of the fcc and we put forward a plan early on in this administration we been executing to maintain u. S. Leadership and the results are in and they are positive for the u. S. What about huawei . Those in congress and those in the Intelligence Community believe it poses a National Security threat to our networks. We are taping us on a thursday and this hardly happens but the fcc will vote on [inaudible] why is this move important to protect the american National Security . Guest when he think about 5g its no longer just phone calls and emails but connecting everything from our Banking System to smart cities to agriculture. This is rolled out we have to make sure the 5g networks are secure and we have significant concern about the threat posed by huawei and other equipment when it is embedded in the u. S. Network. Were taking a first step this week as you know there will be voting to stop sending taxpayer funds, usf funds to subsidize the inclusion of huawei gear in the u. S. Telecom networks. Similarly we are proposing to go further than that which is to look at rip and replacement taking insecure equipment, essentially huawei increment out of network spread ive asked the fcc to expand the proposal and not just those that receive universal support but to any medications provider that has an insecure equipment in their network. I think those are important steps to have a safe, secure network in the u. S. Back what evidence convince you that there was a threat to . Guest we did briefings on this issue and some of which on the confidential side but theres public indication as well. One is the unity of interests and control between the communist party in china and some of these equipment providers. In particular laws in china that require them from a surveillance and other perspective to potentially do their bidding and not disclose that to the u. S. We seen in other contexts as well from companies that ultimately are owned and controlled by the People Public of china and theres an instance where a call from los angeles directed to washington dc was rerouted by a Company Owned by china through [inaudible], china. This had to do with the china mobile proceedings few are looking at. The la to dc is not the most direct route of moving that traffic. Theres a lot of concern about what happened when companies ultimately owned and controlled by the peoples republic of china have equipment in our networks. That is why you dont see this equipment in the core of Major Telecom providers today but some of these same concerns are proceedings that are looking at the smaller role providers that nonetheless have a disagreement in their. Go ahead, david. [inaudible] you mentioned the rural providers with rip and replace which you talk about considering it seems supportive of his expensive and if they take newcomen out they need to replace him with something that will cost a lot of money. What would you say to providers who say you are not only cutting me off from a relatively affordable source of networking gear but put me with the bill for replacing. Guest weve heard from small role providers about this issue and i went on the road to learn about it myself and spent time in rural montana with some of these small telephone providers that have huawei within their gear. Ive been out to sell sites in montana where Huawei Network was operating on that site and they expressed the same concerns you did which is how will they fund potentially rip and replace if we determine the insecure equipment. That is some of what we seek comment on in the proceeding is there a funding meccas mechanism at the fcc and congress has bills introduced that would get funding and we would look at those options. Host commissioner car, how does your proposed fcc or usf fan on while way and cte square with the administration postponing sanctions against huawei . Guest they really line out. The concern out of the Commerce Department was if they were to essentially immediately prohibit the use of huawei equipment that would result in cutting off broadband and cell phone Telephone Service in Rural America with these providers. Thats a similar concern w