>> tonight on c-span 2, next communicators discuss spectrum of science advisers mark warren >> host: well, under screen is a report that came from the president to his council of advisors on science and technology he is entitled, realizing the full potential of government held spectrum to spur economic growth. two members of the council of advisors on science and technology era chewiness this week on "the communicators" on the left, mark gorenberg and on the right, craig mundie

giants from microsoft studios. mark gorenberg with hummer winbald venture out of silicon valley. mr. gorenberg can start by telling us, what is pete castro the presidential scientist and technology. >> guest: it started back in the fdr days. it has 21 members. it is chaired by john whole-grain, his science advisor and also eric lander, who is cochair and vice chair by bill christ. it works on a number of reports that were done first and education, manufacturing, nanotechnology, i.t., a number of other issues on the check out the city in the fall talk about to look at the full potential of

federal spectrum. >> host: craig mundie, if you have summarized this report you log it to the president. >> guest: well, in the report we make a series of recommendations that span quite the range of issues that begin with the question of what should the strategy be long-term for the country in order to avail itself the benefits that come from the technology and software to elegy that are available today. but we haven't been able to be brought to this point. reports than that it's a creative incentives and measurement systems within a broad spectrum in order to accelerate the movement from the classical model of spectrum allocation to the new model. the report recently identifies a specific strategy, how this process could begin early, even

though the complete transformation will probably take as long as 20 years or more. >> host: also joining us is paul kirby, senior editor at the telecommunications report. >> guest: thank you or the report calls for the immediate identification of what thousand megahertz of bush area and also says such sharing should be the norm rather than reallocation. the wireless industry has had. they say they built the first option, reallocating. one of the highlights events that this report and other reporters providing cover for the department of defense, basically which doesn't necessarily want to give it the start time. can you give us a sense how realistic it was that the report be implemented as a result of the opposition? >> guest: is certainly up to

the white house to decide how they want to work on the report we put together. but in terms of the situation itself, we are looking at busy in demand. we are following on the broad and planned, as know, paul, came out two years ago, the code for accessing 500 make there is a spectrum for commercial use by making that available. the growth come even since the broadband plan has been greater than it. if you look a some studies coming out now, those studies look at an economy of perhaps 4.5 showing dollars by 2020. 50 billion devices on the huge growth not only spectrum as we sit today, but also new ideas like the internet of names machine to machine. so if you look at.com you can say well, that may call for 50 times more spectrum. if you look at current

technology, just increase in spectrum, that might give you two times. if you look at technology, that might give you five times. to get 50 times come you have to go to a new idea for working the spectrum. what we found over the long haul, the clearing of reallocation is not sustainable. as you saw in the recent excellent ntia report of the 1755 that called for 10 years and $18 billion a lot of destruction. what we looked at, and it's interesting people consider us to be forward thinking. we think were actually being very pragmatic and conservative. and in the report, with the confusing technologies available today and deploying technology is really a brand-new policy to start to create the spectrum superhighways. we want to get to these users

to. we think within three years by implementing this. in terms rather than 10 years have talked about in the ntia study and again, only looking at federalist from. >> guest: i like to add one thing, which is that, you know, there's a lot of commentary from ctia and the other cellular interests, but we sat at science advisers and looked at the country's acrobat perspective over the long-term, we conclude that precious one application. there's going to be many, many applications in the private sector and government environment and the ultimate sustainability question is not whether you can clear enough spectrum to make the traditional cell phone industry happy. we don't think that's even possible. but when you look at the broader demand overtime, there's no

possibility to do that without a fairly radical transformation of how we and about allocating and managing spectrum. >> host: randall stephenson, ceo of at&t said technical solutions such as smart incentives are nowhere near prime time. the report talks about using technology to enable spectrum sharing. i'm curious if you have any more reaction to the criticism of the tech elegy a few well. >> guest: yes. and by the way, randall stephenson agreed ceo we absolutely agree with comments he's made both in its op-ed that came out beginning of june and ended his speech for an hour or so right after that. but if you look at what he said, he said that it's going to be six to eight years if you clear it repack spectrum, whether it's commercial or federal spectrum

and sharing device technologies he talked about, smart antennas, tsa would be five years or more. and they're looking for spec are more immediately and that was his call. we actually believe in what we put forward that we are espousing the same because were not talking about, although indigenous technologies in the report. if you see, paul, and the recommendations we don't talk about deployment of its recommendations at all. we talked about technologies here today been used for your database technology and the idea of build building spectrum access system, which is really an evolution of the way space technology that craig has been very involved with now for probably over 10 years and can talk about. we talk about deployment of small cell and small cell type knowledge he will be shipping more units as small cell next year that we will backroom cells from attacking a simple

technologies for sharing better art exploits or the way they now to put medical body area networks for sharing of military systems. some are actually talking about using technologies today. but we think if we create that that the, that will be the spurring witness to move these other technologies forward and we'll see those in the five to 10 years that will happen more likely to see them, by the way, if we get superhighways started to get a framework going where there be successful. >> host: go ahead. >> guest: i wish is going to add a thought that many of these type knowledge he is don't have to be at the substantially to even begin. i mean, today the whole world uses a lot of bluetooth and wi-fi, which are very, very small cells. in fact, even carriers are

offputting and high density areas. a lot of data are tracked onto these essentially wi-fi cells, which are very small, but create reuse. take existing solar system and shrink the file sizes systematically which would require no new spectrum and technology and essentially get increased reuse within the classical architectures. as mark mentioned, we're not betting the farm on the idea that there has to be an immediate introduction of radical to elegy. however, we think over time each additional technical changes creates another multiple effect in terms of spectral efficiency and that is why we think over time he can in fact occurring much greater capacity utilization than getting out of the current model of allocation. >> host: craig mundie is a

research officer for the microsoft corporation. are there privacy concerns when it comes to sharing spectrum space with the federal government? >> guest: no. basically, you know, sharing is a word that implies a lot of people. radius may coexist in a common set of frequencies in no way implies that there's access from one radio system to the next radio system, whether they are to price systems are prior to any government. those are completely resolved and i don't think there's been a privacy issue all. just go in your report, gentlemen, you write shared access should be governed according to a three tier hierarchy. federal received the highest protection from harmful interference, secondary

licensees for registered appointments in his database may receive some quality, possibly in exchange for fees and general authorized access users to be about opportunistic access two unoccupied spectrum. could you explain that further, please? >> guest: surer. if you look at the idea of first alone deployed federal spectrum insane okay, you would have a different area a federal user be the primary in combat. you could then have hopes that could get an exclusive secondary access. that by break of the current all all to use systems, small cells looking for quality of service, almost like a carpool lane highway. and then in general access, you could have the idea of people who don't have exclusive access sharing that. and some ways, similar to

unlicensed, but not unlicensed spectrum that is either registered or could be automatically registered so there could be track of all this in database. >> host: i will just offer a thought. sometimes people get animated about this question of general preemption or priority. but there's two things important to realize. we have these situations it will, even in the wireline telephone out. the government has come up for many, many years the ability to preempt traffic on the classical phone lines or cellular note work in emergency situations. there's always a nature reserve some kind of capability for government in specific situations. here we think we think inside of that been an emergency environment that when you look at the aggregate you suspect turned measured over time and geography, there's lots and lots of places and times where people

have very sustained use of this, even if there comes a moment with the government says hayes, i got a plane or an exercise or both that happens to me to operate in that harbor and you may have to move out of the way for some period of time. but when you look at aggregate gains, we believe they would dramatically outweigh, you know, risk associated for disruptive effects of that kind of tiered model of priority. >> host: >> guest: the assumption is the government is not a suspect or often, but when they too needed it's very. it's in small areas, and frequent times. in such a way where it's not very disruptive as craig is saying to commercial users, particularly ones who did the secondary use of that spectrum. in fact, one of the arguments the commercial world has used as the federal agencies are not using skype term as often and

therefore not officially and that's the reason why we should be given that spectrum for use in the commercial world. if that's true, and the system is even a bigger benefit in terms of how often i'll get used to that in terms of how often i'll get used to that in terms of how often i'll get used to that in terms of how often i'll get used to that the other pieces of funding that those federal systems become more and more efficient and therefore the centers into the secondary user and in fact make it easier over time to clear systems and move them around to other locations. we think this is a way to kind of these into the issue at a much better share of these. either way, the other point important to make his 50% of the spectrum, up to 3.70 caban to share today as well, but in a very static way.

so this is not a radical departure. it's just a much more efficient use of how spectrum can be shared. >> host: you are watched the stands, "the communicators" program. the advisers of science and technology. mark gorenberg and craig mundie, research officer and strategy out there with acres off. paul kirby is our guest reporter. >> host: we are talking about priority access in the hierarchy of sharing for the federal spectrum. a number of parties, federal agencies have to be assured that their spectrum, their operations won't disappear in the interference and there could be basically a shot off of the commercial operation if there's harmful interference. mr. mundie mentioned that data

wide databases. it's not nationwide operation. can you give either of us the assurance that federal agencies will need enhancer technology develops quickly enough such as the databases that gives them the assurance that they will be will to continue to operate in a sharing machine without interference? >> well, in a sense that implementing all these things is a little bit of technology and a lot of sort of operational substantiation of these capabilities and you can say at the tail end at a little bit of regulatory control to ensure that the right are in place to keep people from doing the wrong thing. part of the reason in our proposal for this and i can think of it as sort of a transitional model of the stacked priorities as it allows us to get started immediately, before the time or a government radio system may be modified to

be more inherently able to operate in a similar generally shared environment. so a lot of the requests we have less to say, how could you make use of type elegy that are currently demonstrable in the process of getting rolled out, both in the united states and outside of the united states and piggyback on the progress made there in both the regulatory and developmental cents over the past 10 years and use that to accelerate the transition. you know, each of these choices can be made man by man. so it is not to be served one giant database that controls everything all the time. it may be practical or desirable, but it's not a prerequisite. so for example, we identified an area in the spectrum for the government has a lot of uses. for example, maritime radars.

while that is an important use when a ship is operating in a particular area, that is typically only near the coast or maybe the great lakes. the entire rest of the country is currently reserved for those boats that were never be there to operate readers. our view is that the government is willing to know the idea of registration, but those devices are, then you have the ability to come back on anybody who violates. these violations have been today. you get people, whether they're amateur radio operators, intentionally or accidentally start intruding where they're not supposed to be in the sec hasn't forced the power he can those issues. to create the environment, there will be technological activity, but you have to take conventional mechanisms well established or enforcement on the fcc site and then you have to have the contract made with the federal user. these have been done on an ad hoc basis already.

for example, sharing radars with other applications. it's not like this without precedents. but we try to do is say there's a general architecture that would allow this to become the norm that things are done on an ad hoc basis one after another. >> host: as craig is saying, we believe a system like this can be applied regardless of frequency, with its worth the higher frequency in higher frequency is 2700 above are particularly well suited to small cell and everyone is sort of converging to this idea of, for example, in the 35:50 p.m., which was the first analyzed by the ntia. they looked at it against large macro tires and treated exclusion zones around the coast, which is not that interesting. if you put in small cell

technology into the area by commercial users, whether they appear in the accessory general access, you can shrink those exclusion zones significantly and at the same time give much better solace to the federal government that they're going to have a freak, clear area to operate. >> host: the new federal spectrum machine can make up the revenue return from federal agency. members of congress club option because it brings in money. how can you then convince lawmakers and some democrats on the hill have been very capable. one republican commissioner, how can you convince them or we try to convince them that it's okay if you don't get the option because down the road it will create more than enough for the economy? >> guest: we are looking only at federal spectrum. if you look at that, the option started in 1990.

there's 50 billion, but only 90% has come from repurposed and commercial spectrum for commercial reuse. a very small part has been from federal spectrum and bush really only been one option and i was in 2006, which invested more than $5 billion. again, that is also used. the omb will score that over 10 years. realistically is considered over many more more years do not. that's only a few hundred million a year in total to date from federal options. if you look at the ntia report that just came out, again, that tartu at $18 billion a night out event planning right now, i believe, to option that because the costs are clearly would be greater than what they suspect will come in. when you look at federal spec drum, the amount of revenue they were going to get anyway would be relatively small.

now, in our proposal be looked up, which he created this but dramatic system can have the idea secondary users, you have a system already set up or you could have a number of different types of revenue models. you could have user fee models, recurring revenue models. you could have option models that in fact could be looking at a system where we perfected far more to be used, but these may be smaller geographic options. smaller timeframe options. we think you could open a solid to a large number in the secondary use and that can bring in quite bit of revenue over time in the federal ban, which it is unclear that they will even bring in future revenues. >> host: >> guest: is also import in the spirit of answering your question that i guess the question i would pose back to

them as if they ever use bluetooth or wi-fi, these are essentially in a tiny part of the spectrum on a completely unlicensed, totally shared environment with no database prior to anybody. you can go out on today and there's a huge economy built on the use of wi-fi from the sale of the equipment, offloading of data traffic, equipment people buying in their homes. every one of these things essentially aiding the economy if you will. that's at the title of the report talks about the impact of making a strategy choice like this that does move your way. in fact, i believe over time, implementing this really moves us from an artificial shortage that we have today in the inherent availability of spectrum, to one where spectrum appears to be abundantly available, the people who want a new application in many domains should be able to get immediate

access to spectrum in their problem. and in that environment, you know, we think it's going to basically move the economy up further. and so, the indirect revenue that comes to economic growth dwarf that. one of the things in the report, there's a citation to an economic study done in europe about making a fairly specific allocation of spectrum into a new sort of larger unlicensed band and they estimated that the megahertz put into the model in europe would be the rough equivalent of an 800 million euro stimulus program -- billion euros euro plan. what do you look at it as an academic economist are just practically and what has happened with the stimulus created by the arrival of wi-fi and bluetooth and basically less than a decade, you should have some common for but these things could really have been.

>> host: recently officials from the white house, have you gotten any sense either one of you that the president -- the plan for the president to issue the member you called for any time soon and if so, when? >> guest: i'll just say this, as mark said earlier it saw the president's choice about what he does in terms of the reporter. but i think it's safe to assume that we wouldn't issue the report and a complete vacuum. there's been a lot of discussion with all the stakeholders in the white house throughout the federal agencies and frankly many commercial companies, even those that are sort of in some ways complaining about different aspects, where all party to the discussion before we even completed writing it. so you know, it's not like we went into a closet somewhere, produced this thing and dropped it on the president's desk. there is a lot of thoughtful

process that goes into the development of it. and as such, we are pretty hopeful that the president will in fact move to act on the recommendation. exactly how is up to him. >> host: mark gorenberg, why a thousand megahertz? where did that come from? >> guest: well, well, first of all would look at the demand and we see the demand is huge. the other question is why a thousand megahertz? when the broadband plan came out, the identified spectrum and initially available at that 2.2 gigahertz of spectrum and then keyed in on 1.5 gigahertz or 1500 megahertz they should be analyzed. from that we started to look through and said there was a good opportunity how it will evolve in this area say 27023700 there's a lot of other bands as well. so 1000 megahertz is a combination of any of demand for

share at the federal government, but also the idea of setting the big old cassettes and macro for us to go after. >> guest: all at there's a technical basis for why we want the big old. our model and the long-term as we should be giving people a tiny slivers of spec trim to operate in, that in fact the new architectures that are emerging in software defined radios and other related to allergies elite operate better if they get to range across the writer chunk of frequency. that is where we seem to get much higher overall utilization. the military moves to some of these architectures years ago, not first drill efficiency, to basically make it harder for people to jam them. but in fact, the inverse of be of benefit if you have a lot of people operating across a broader band come you're likely to get much better spec drill

efficiency and get everybody into the model will impact required all radio systems or be architected from a 100-year-old model to the new advanced technological model and that is and that is why we cleaned the entire process will take two to three decades. we can't collect to get the satellites and service them and change their radios. to some of these systems have a long time and you won't be able to get them all re-architected. but i believe over that period of time and with a lot of that happening much sooner that these things will actually happen. >> host: final question for paul kirby. ..