how efficient that can be once you have a framework that you can work with. measurement process by holding hospitalsgúz&z&z&z& expanding over time. and certainly in the health information technology rules

that came out, of which comments, you know, they're going to be finalized in the coming months. there is a whole elaborate mechanism for quality information to be reported to health i.t., do we see is kind of the wave of the future. and one of the questions we have is how many quality measures are too many quality measures. and you know, you talk about the 1300 people at duke who work on admin. well, you know, eventually have to extract all the quality information from patient records and that kind of thing and how is that just going to lead into another bunch of people working in hospital to a non-patient care kinds of things. >> i'll leave you with one example of where i think the road will be very difficult. in the course of this bill, there was a kind of discussion between the business roundtable and the ama over whether

medicare data, the data that medicare keeps on claims records should be made available to big corporations can combine it with their own data in figure two is providing good quality care and who is providing better quality care. and the business roundtable was insisting on access to the data in the ama was insisting the doctor entre information onto the dock your. in one way or the other we have to decide issues like that, which is sort of comes directly to your point, which is over the next decade, with or without reform, we're going to have to decide whether we want to take steps to improve the value of care or we don't. and if you're going to fight every step of the way, then it will be a god-awful decade. and if we don't, then it will be a wonderful decade. and i actually want -- i think it's what you listen to what linda is singing its hopeful because what she is saying is

look, my members, all of my members, even the ones most vulnerable to the world has to change. and we're going to do it. we just need to make sure that we do it in a way that makes sense. that's where most of the providers are now, which is what makes me hopeful that we will get there. they're not say no, this is too fast, we have to slow it down. they're saying we know this is coming, which got to do it. >> i just want to make a last plug. our association had a separate initiative that's run out of a whole other branch of the aha called hospitals in pursuit of excellence. and it is part of our strategic plan to reduce things like love line infections and utis, urinary tract infections and readmissions. we actually have that written into our strategic plan as a field with percentage goals to meet over the coming years. so i would tell you that -- and

this is totally voluntary thing. i mean, the government has nothing to do with this. and we're out there educating our members about how they can share information to actually achieve those goals. we feel at the end of the day, you know, this is coming out of and we should take the initiative and be aggressive about solving the problem. >> adjusted so that you know, slides are put on the main website very shortly after the meetings, so you don't have to estimate the flights. join me in thanking our excellent speakers. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> this week on "the communicators," a discussion about the current wireless industry with martin cooper is credited for the creation of the mobile cell phone. >> well, recently on this program robert mcdowell was our guest. he's an fcc commissioner. and during that interview he mentioned somebody who's very influential in telecommunications industry. here's what he had to say. >> i was recently speaking to the inventor of the cell phone, lest we all know the inventor of

the wireline phone as alexander graham bell. his name is martin cooper. 99.9% of americans have never heard of him. he is the host influential person no one has ever heard of. he is in his 80's now and you should have them on this program sometime. >> curious on your screen. mr. cooper, we're not sure whether to curse you or thank you for inventing the cell phone. >> guest: well, peter, would you give up your cell phone because of all these disadvantages? i don't think so. and that's true of most people. so the benefits i think alloway vickers says. >> host: did you briefly tell us what your role was or is in the invention of the cell phone? >> guest: well, it's a long story and it has to do with the fact that at&t invented cellular telemetry and as far back as

1946 if you would imagine. and in the early 1960's, they suggested that they were prepared to commercialize it and they had two conditions. one is that they were the only people technically and financially capable of creating this new concept of cellular telepathy and therefore they wanted to have a monopoly. and the second thing, their version of cell phones was telephones if you can imagine that. and i was with this little company in chicago called motorola and our vision was at the time is ready for people to have the freedom of personal, portable devices that would let them communicate wherever they were. so this little company decided to take on the largest company in the world and we did. and by 1973, the fcc was ready

to make a decision and that decision was monopoly or not, the industry gets a tick, the technology, so that you cannot portables in contrast with car telephones. and so i decided the only way to do this is with a dazzling demonstration. and i conceived at the thought of actually building a portable, not only affordable but the complete system and taking it to washington to show it to people who are influential they are, take it to new york and let the press look at this and persuade the world at the time was ready for competitive portable, personal portable communications. and history tells us it's very successful. >> host: how big was the original cell phone and how much did it cost to develop the technology? >> guest: the cell phone that wade 2.5 pounds. it was huge. so big i wish i had tried my

model -- >> host: we have a picture on the screen. guess no good, so you know what it looks like. the battery that lasted for 20 minutes, but that was not a problem because you couldn't hold it up for 20 minutes it was so heavy. and in order to create this phone, which we did, in a period of some three months, we literally had to shut down the engineering of our company. we have ever been in the company working on one aspect or another so you could not have afforded to all not cell phone yourself. >> host: what did it cost? >> guest: we've got literally hundreds of thousands of $1973 to create that phone. i 1983, the price had gone down that much because in 1983 a commercial cell phone sold for $4000. not many could have afforded that at that time. but we sold a lot of them. >> host: and where did the word thou come from? >> guest: for the whole concept of cellular telephony

and i hope we'll talk about that is the idea of being able to use the radio spectrum many times in one geographic area. the old way was he put up a tower in the middle of the city and you occupied a radio channel for a single conversation over the entire city and maybe 50 or 100 miles beyond that. with stereo veteran cellular telephony he divided up into areas. eventually we had to come up with a name for that. we call themselves. and it's possible to use the frequency in one cell and then a few cells over you use the same frequency again and again and again. specter out deficiencies reuse of the system and of course when you do that people do move. that's the whole principle of being portable. you have to hand off. you have to have a continuous conversation as he moved from cell to cell.

so that is what it fundamentals of cellular telephony is. use an handoff. >> host: marty cooper, robert mcdowell the commissioner went on to talk about your theory of spectral efficiency and what is that eerie? >> guest: the real issue have to deal with what the sides of the spectrum is. you hear a lot of people talk about spectrums beachfront. if you go back we've been using the radio spectrum for well over 100 years, over 110 years. and when marconi used the radio spectrum, he would transmit information and every bit to six seconds for one bit of information. and we have a very limited frequency range of the spectrum. somehow or other we now transmitted billions and billions of bits of information every second over the fact and

we repeat the spectrum over and over again. or the ability for us to transmit information through the spectrum has improved by a chilean times since marconi did his transmission. it's literally doubled every 30 months for over 110 years, at least for the telecommunications area. the spectrum is not a fixed entity. it's an expanding entity and we believe we know, those of us that are involved in the technology, that we can keep doing this for the next 50 or 60 years in the next generation is going to keep it going even beyond that. >> host: joining us in our conversation as paul kirby, senior editor of telecommunications reports. this are kirby. >> guest: the fcc's broadband plan is coming out later this month and it's going to recommend freeing up 500 megahertz of additional spectrum over the next david.

we'll also talk about spector efficiency and uses of spectrum. as you're concerned that the plan will focus too much on freeing up more spectrum rather than making use of better use of the frequencies? >> guest: well, freeing the spectrum is a wish and a hope, but considering the way the congress and our regulatory agencies have set up the environment is a very difficult to take spectrum away from somebody once they are licenses. now i must preface that with a comment that the spectrum belongs to the public, belongs to us. and about to be used in our benefit. but the system we have set up, optioning, identify and spectrum with a different service has made the spectrum on most any issue of ownership. someone gets a piece of the

spectrum and they treasure that the realm and don't want anybody else to have access to it. very hard to gain, if you take spectrum back from somebody that has it. but that's not the real issue, paul. the real issue is how bad do we need new capacity in the spectrum? and cisco has made an estimate that within the next ten years, the amount of information that's going to go over our wireless system is going to increase by 40 times. well, if you're an actual user in new york, then you're already experiencing some really difficult problems squeezing stuff through. now just imagine what happens if you increase that by 40 times. you're not going to solve that problem by getting 40 times more spectrum. there is a 40 times more spectrum. the cellular carriers now have some 250 megahertz. the chairman has said in his broadband plan that he seeks to

add perhaps another total of 500 megahertz. only part of which would go to the cellular carriers. so there may be a potential to double the amount of spectrum. how we going to solve the problem with 40 times increase in capacity? its new technology. and there's lots of technology available today that the carriers can use and will use when it's in its interest and there's more coming down. we can talk about those things, but the solution to the spectrum problem is not redistributing the spectrum. it's not taking spectrum away from one entity, not even sharing the spectrum. it is in fact creating new capacity, in effect, creating new spectrum and the potential, that process has been going on for 110 years and the potential for increasing the amount of spectrum is enormous. >> host: so what should the

government do to get the incentives than for that to occur? or should they require deep spectrum intelligence? >> guest: in the past, this increase i talk about doubling every 2.5 years hasn't been uniform. it's happened in spirit and what has caused those spirits, well, the biggest reason is people get starved. they have a new application that can portend we fought that battle in the land mobile industry in the 1950's and 60's and so they become creative, innovative and may create new techniques. now the other press is if you get new spectrum, you have to use it efficiently or we won't give it to you. and that's what happened in the case of cellular technology. the whole process of cellular technology occurred because at&t

said if you give us 30 megahertz, 30, remember with 250 today. if you give us 30 megahertz will never be back again. we had this to called cellular. we can keep making the cells smaller and smaller and smaller and we will never be back pretty spectrum again. and here we are now 35 years later, perhaps 40 years later in the industry has 250 megahertz and saying we badly need new spectrum. the fact is that if the carriers are required to use new techniques to actually measure their efficiency and reports in it. i think we would find there's going to be a lot of innovation and a lot of new tech knowledge he. >> host: are there people who use the spectrum who weren't using it efficiently right now in your view? >> guest: well, i hate to pick

on the broadcasters, but everybody else does so i will too. but the broadcast industry in the 1950's used some 176 megahertz channels, a huge amount of spectrum for one broadcast and they did that because if you have a broadcast channel, the technology at that time required it to various kinds. within five years the receivers had gotten so much better and the transmitters that that wasn't necessary anymore, but the broadcasters continue to occupy a huge amount of spectrum and they did so until as we know last year. so if you could imagine going 60 years using many times more technology than was required, it's a perfect example of what we have done with our environment dominate the spectrum so valuable that people

hang onto it with all their capability. >> how difficult of a part that matter? defined 500 megahertz they're going to have to go to the government. how difficult would be as a political matter to say to the department of defense, you must be more spectrum efficient. they can come back and say we are spectrum efficient if you do say that, though we can't compromise our sensitive operation. so as a practical matter, how difficult is it to go to the government to be set for their spectrum users. >> guest: well, it's very, very difficult and you don't want to single out the government. the fact is that there are many entities that are working very hard to use the spectrum efficiently. and there are many places where it's just impossible to get better radar beam example. you use a certain amount of spectrum for radar and we depend

on not. not only for military applications, but in aircraft traffic control and we don't want to cut these guys back, not if it affects our safety. so it would be really desirable if we could put pressure on people to become more efficient and they will figure out ways to do it. but the thought that you can solve the problem by taking the spectrum away from somebody is naïve. if people are using the spectrum now, in general, need that spectrum, yes they can improve things, but taken away from them is not going to solve the problem for other people. >> host: even taken away from the broadcasters as has been indirectly suggested by chairman genachowski. >> host: >> guest: they birdie try that. the point is, peter, but it's

not a 50 megahertz problem, which is the magnitude of spectrum they're finding. it's not 250 megahertz problem. it's a gigahertz. it's 1000 megahertz kind of problems it has that's what cisco says is going to happen in ten years. well, chairman genachowski, and by the way, i have to tell you that there's nothing wrong with what the fcc has done. they put a lot of work into this. the plan is a good plan, but they should not give the impression that it's going to solve the problem. if in fact we do require 40 times more spectrum for telecommunications in the next ten years, then that comes out to 1000 megahertz. well, there are only three gigahertz of spectrum that are useful for our kinds of things. so if 30 times improvement. were we going to find that? it just doesn't exist. new technology is the only way.

>> host: why do you only save rudy gigahertz is useful for siler technology? >> guest: all that is useful for technology in general. when you go up above three gigahertz or so, all of a sudden you run into a few problems like rain interferes in the antennas get to be tiny and small and pretty soon it's very hard to get energy to go through the air. the useful part of the radio spectrum just in my lifetime has increased considerably. and when i started to work in 1954, we were using 150 megahertz as the highest frequency for voice communications. and little by little we learned how to do better. and by the time we got to cellular, we were up to 800 or 900 megahertz and that we have new system coming out, clear wire is coming out with wimax

systems at 2.5 gigahertz and it works very well. you go beyond 3.5 gigahertz or so and the physics starts interfering. so there is a limit to the frequency range. >> host: for the sake of clarification, we talked about broadcasters. chairman genachowski last week specifically said that broadband plan recommended ruby a voluntary plan piercer tv stations could voluntary at the spectrum and share in the proceeds of option of that spectrum. obviously that would take legislation, but just to clarify that because there were years early on by the broadcasters at the fcc would in fact kind of involuntarily reclaim a lot of that spectrum. >> guest: thank you, paul for clarifying that. i don't think there's anything wrong with redistributing the spec, but to believe that's going to solve this problem is naïve. the benefits, not the standing

peter will curse me a little bit, the benefit of the ability to send various kinds of data between a is going to be enormous. we've only scratched the surface. there's so much that can be done and i hope we get to talk about that later. but we're going to need much more than you can get by just picking up 50 or 100 or 500 megahertz by transferring it from broadcasters to matter how you do that. >> not to get into too many of the technical details because not of those viewers are engineers. smart antennas or something that a company, great con develops. what are some of the top knowledges they can use better use of the spectrum. >> guest: we have to talk about antennas for just a second. did you battle the cells we talked about earlier that you asked about, peter.

each one of these cells is a radio station and transmits and receives. there's an antenna. you've seen these all over washington. they transmit in all directions to reach out to the subscribers and they receive everything in all directions. well, when they transmit, most of the energy is transmitted is wasted. all that's useful is what comes to the antenna of your cell phone. and when the station listens, it listens in all directions and it hears all these other things and dollar wants to hear is your cell phone. and what the smart antennas do is they use an array of antennas with a lot of processing and when they listen to you, they focus in on you and listen only to you and reject other people. and when they talk back come at a directly to you. what does that do? it lets you talk to invite more people in the same amount of

spectrum with the same amount of equipment, so use the spectrum more efficiently and you save tons of money. that's one way. another example of the kind of technology we're talking about, think about the fact what we are talking about all the cell sites. where are they? are on the outside of buildings and towers. where do we hold our cell phone conversations? 70% of cell phone conversations are inside. now that doesn't make a lot of sense, does it quite so clever engineers have come up with new vices called microfilm and these cells are located in buildings. and all the sinew of tiny cells and small cells being more spectrum, mark pectoral efficiency. another thing that carriers are doing today is they're using wi-fi, which is in the unlicensed bands and are offloading some of the data.

so they'll make a cell phone, that when you're walking on the street or you're not in an area where there's a wi-fi, you use the cellular network. when you're in a building of our wi-fi aspect, you'll start using that and not use the rest of the system. so maybe improvement now. we have now offloaded the system. there are techniques for compression. we're sending a lot of information and were learning how to compress on information and from the same amount of information for those amount of bits. so these are a few examples but there are more. >> host: mr. cooper, do you think that those new technologies are being adopted in the national broadband plan that is due out in congress in short from the fcc? >> guest: the technologies are

out and not fast enough. and the reason is the government, the national policy does not put appropriate pressure on people that do that. you'll find that the new systems that are being introduced, the wimax and lte will embrace the smart antennas. so they will embrace some of these other technologies. there was certainly use more compression. and the carriers have already announced a plan to use themselves. but as long as there is the hope that they can get new spectrum they don't really have enough pressure to introduce and technologies. and that's the only point that i -- >> host: this is c-span for communicators program. our guest is marty cooper, the inventor of the cell phone. paul kirby at telecommunications reports senior editor is also here. this took her become the next question. >> it's been a debate and will continue to be as how to treat

public safety. the plan is going to recommend that the fcc we optioned ten megahertz of other spec drum and leave public safety with ten megahertz nationwide or at the public safety community, a lot of them say we need 20 megahertz, twice as much spectrum as were going to get for broadband purposes. we talk about pectoral efficiency and how it's being used, public safety will say, we may not always be used in the spectrum we have, but when we needed to have to be there for us. how do you view the public safety spectrum vis-à-vis spec aero efficiency. can those same techniques apply or is there a different way of looking at kind of like raiders for instance for the government >> guest: first of all i have to mention the public safety segment of our industry has in the past been very pictorially visioned. and there's no question that they ought to have the highest