[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> now our look at the future of connected cars and self-driving cars and how regulations will play a part. representatives from toyota horizon and the global automakers association took part in annual the annual consumer electronics association innovators summit. this hour-long event starts with

remarks from david strickland the former administrator of the national highway traffic safety administration. >> good afternoon everybody. i hope you're enjoying the first day of ces although it is the official first day. i will be the moderator for today's panel. but before we start the brief introductions and the full discussion we have some opening remarks and i want to introduce the next speaker. he has been riding shotgun over this for four years now. it's been a very interesting four years and a revolution was going on in the automobile industry. i'd like you to please welcome david strickland. [applause] >> thank you so much and wow this is a superstar panel. i may stay longer to learn something here.

as a number of you maybe aware i will be stepping down from my post at nhtsa as administrator and a couple of weeks but i wanted to share a couple of perspectives quickly. i've been told five minutes and i will keep 25. we first began our work during my tenure on distraction starting really in earnest in 2009, 2010. i remember my decision to make sure that i came to ces as part of their regular auto show tour because ces has effectively become the fourth major auto show in america and gary shapiro and the team at cea and manufactures are recognizirecognizi ng the car companies are no longer just car companies. they are technology companies because there is a convergence and with convergence there is possibility and opportunity and also great risks.

so as my valedictory if you will in terms of where we are and what we have seen and where we will go, i'm incredibly happy to see that so many partners are now talking to each other which wasn't the case not that long ago, where you have wireless providers and handheld manufactures and automakers and system platform providers like androids and the windows and the ios's of the world which are in strategic partnerships and figuring out ways forward. and speaking of which. [laughter] i wish i had said i'd planned that but i really didn't. that is all good things. but i will tell you that from the part of the agency nhtsa as

a the safety regulator and there are other regulatory bodies that will be a part of this space in partnership with nhtsa, the federal committee patients commission the federal. commission. we have only one chance to get this right, so i implore all of you to continue on your path of not only communicating at the level that we are talking right now but frankly building a broader basis of how we attack the problem we see in the future of connectivity and its connectivity writ large, vehicle-to-vehicle connectivity that we are working on at the agency level, connecting with the driver of the vehicle so connecting the driver to the outside world and how we can innovate all of these things safe bet but i will tell you the one thing that will disrupt all of this, our hope in vehicle-to-vehicle communications, our push for technology at nhtsa through significant seamless initiative

where we are focusing on increasing belt use through seatbelt interlocks looking at trying to eliminate drunk driving by having the vehicle recognize if you're over the limit and reducing human error which is part of 90% of all traffic crashes. the hope of reducing traffic fatalities to 10,000 people, 5000 people is assault based on this technological hope but we won't attain it if we don't address privacy and data and all those components which people hold dear. we are in a sensitive time in america with regards to positions in the power of everything that we are relying on in safety systems and connections will not be attained if consumers don't trust the work of the regulators or the work of industry. so my last official request as a nhtsa administrator at the consumer electronics show is we have to do more. we have to be better and we have

to do it faster. the agency is in a position right now where i have always said we sort of follow the notion of what wayne gretzky's dad said to him in the years of being a young hockey player. don't go to where the puck is. you have to go to where the puck is going. nhtsa has to do this and we will. i have a strong team that will continue that work at everybody in this room is responsible to. we are going to hold these goals we have to make sure we have the trust of the american people for all these wonderful innovations that you see on the floor. that is my hope and that is my wish. i want to thank everybody that is in this round and all the partners over the past four years that is frankly made this the most dynamic time that any nhtsa administrator has ever had an office and i want to say you guys truly have the ability to do gods work so keep talking, keep planning and keep innovating, keep growing and please keep safe the year number one priority. henke very much.

[applause] >> thank you very much. that was very interesting. we are going to talk about privacy only today. you know i've been coming to the show out to las vegas for almost 25 years and technology shows. i have heard innovation revolution and tell i was deaf from hearing it but honestly this year we are really seeing the start of something that will revolutionize travel, safety. david alluded to the idea of zero fatalities that people realistically talk about now but there is a long road to get there. that is sort of what our starting point is going to be. i'm going to very quickly run through folks on the panel here and then get off on this discussion because we don't have a lot of time and i'm not going to be able to do it much longer either. we have hillary cain from toyotm

gartner and mike stanton from the association of local automakers, andrew brown delphi and mitch bainwol from the alliance of automobile manufacturers. since david was here and talking about it and it's a policy discussion the first thing is how can anybody in the legislature and government keep up with the changes we see? we have already seen many of us the brand-new things and how can you legislate and protect the public can help manufactures etc. and can they do that? we will start off, if you want to start off. >> that's fine. the question is how can we keep up and how can the ministry should keep up with what is changing in the telematics world or the automotive world. we have to have a lot of people i guess. full employment act for the

government because it's changing dramatically. i think a lot of the changes good and there's a lot of innovation. the cars are giving smarter and yes the cars are connected and i think to his last point about safety is at the core of the connected vehicle is safety. there is the technology that has been around for 18 years that will notify in the case of an accident and if you think about how many accidents are reported from the vehicle from those technologies it's out there and connected. how do they keep up? i think it's things like this and i think their initiatives where we as an industry need to start coming together. i'm not a believer that we need to throw policy at everything that happens in the car because policy often will stymie innovation. i think the technology that got us to the safer cars, these connected cars they technology that allows us to have hands-free calling in cars the technology that connects you to your dealer or the diagnostic

that same technology can be used to solve some of these things that i think nhtsa is worried about and i agree with him 100% when he should come together as an industry and we need all the players at the table to figure out how to use that same technology. >> andrew. >> yes. first of all i want to compliment administrator strickland because i think he like no other administrator before him actually reached out to the industry to try to understand the nature of the technology, to try to understand what could be possible. not that it needed to be in regulation but to stretch their thinking about the possibilities i think he was very receptive to that. now from that point going forward i think not just nhtsa that all government administrations or government

agencies that work in this space need to reach out to industry, reach out to the consumer electronics sector, reach out to academia because there are a lot of players in this space and all of us have a piece of the equation. it needs to be more collaborative. it's not like the old days where we were off in our separate corners and then we came out fighting. what must happen is that we work together to achieve the best solution for everyone concerned. industry, government and ultimately the consumer. >> i would like to echo what andrew just said about david. he was an incredibly accessible guide, and is, kind and thoughtful and a love of technology that came through his work.

david when he spoke said the problem of connectivity and i might quibble with that a little bit. the issue here is the opportuniopportuni ty of connectivity. we have this dawn of a great new age of safety that connectivity is going to usher in an the question is the pace of change consistent with an h. or government in the modern world? i think the answer is unfortunately not. the regulatory process takes two to three years to implement a regulation. every show at ces you see dramatic new innovation selig m we always talk about innovation but innovation is funding its way into the marketplace now very quick way and it's really profound. i was just at a show a bit ago and i saw a mercedes display. there is a watch that commands the interface and the integrated

system and that is pretty striking. as a metaphor and i don't say this to pick on nhtsa but it does the best he can do with really dedicated public servants. but the distraction guidelines it came out earlier this year for visual manual dean langwith 2% of the distraction system. it didn't deal the cell phone. it didn't deal with boys or gesture and i think that's a perfect metaphor for the challenge here because it's not relevant to today. and the way you deal with that is by government serving in a different role. instead of government being a regulator think it should be if facilitator of conversations between all the various players on this panel and in this room so the carriers and the manufacturers and the software guys. we have to find a way to pull together to produce a product in

the card that is safe. we are used to dealing with nhtsa. these other elements of this new ecosystem or not and we have to deal with them. >> it would also like to add i think the point that there needs to be more collaboration and cooperation among the various players in the field is absolutely right. i also think we emphasize that there needs to be collaboration cooperation among those that are doing the regulating. i think we have seen that more pronounced perhaps the last few months last year or so where we are talking about the federal. commission. we are talking about spectrum policies. we are talking about the federal communications commission and talking about this traditional area. i'm not sure that there is enough, i would argue perhaps there's not enough cooperation among those regulators as well. i didn't we have seen that play out most are found in the vehicle-to-vehicle communications space. >> certainly one of my questions was does the sec work with nhtsa

because we are integrating all these different services but coming back to the original ideh studies like a 3000 vehicles in ann arbor? does that help the government understand what's going on? is a something like that or should we be doing something like europe where we don't force a standard that we put out a star rating for your car so if you don't have collision avoidance on the car to give shoe one star rather than five. and those different kinds of approaches to that. >> that is a big piece of it and i would like to introduce another level which is ultimately the consumer that would determine if something does worker doesn't work. all of you might reject some of the stuff if it doesn't do what is supposed to do and actually i believe the government has a huge role in facilitating innovation and not necessarily stifling it. the process related issues of getting things done quickly and

at the same time there wouldn't be any regulation at all this would be the wild west. maybe everybody in the room knows how to do it right and not put anybody in danger but there are other approaches i've seen in particular from tech companies and automotive companies. that is where the government has to play a role but ultimately it's the market force that will determine what sticks and what doesn't stick and the whole notion about driver distraction for example which is then a huge topic and continues to be one actually will force the automotive industry to become so much more innovative in how you serve information to consume that content and maybe share with people. that this would help to bring innovation to the marketplace. he wouldn't have any of these guidelines in place none of that what actually happened and i think you would see the industry shifting the mindset. if you plant the right seeds and create a structure for people to think of what needs to happen in order to excite consumers and still allow them to have the

digital lifestyle in the vehicle that is represented that is when it gets interesting and that has to be the role of the government. that includes doing some of these demonstrations and testing. >> mentioned the safety launch in ann arbor which i think is a great example of how government should engage. i mean it's a great demonstration and in fact i think it's an excellent model in terms of engaging or facilitating the oem's the tier 1's, academics and other players who have technologies and telecommunications because it's an attempt to try to understand the technology. not only what is possible but what is doable and what is affordable. and to understand some of the flaws, some of the benefits and to try to understand that in the context of data.

data that will help us assess what is truly feasible and how workable are those solutions? i mean if you just step back for a moment and think about this, i mean any new tech knowledge he for a vehicle that you put into the marketplace at best it's going to go on for 15 or 16 million vehicles here in united states and maybe 70 million vehicles globally but here in the united states you have 303 million vehicles already and yet you are only producing 15.6 new vehicles each year. how do you really make it affect if if it might take you 20 years for the technology to propagate throughout the car parked? regulators need to understand that legislating something instantaneously doesn't mean that you fix the problem. in fact you may cause a bigger problem and you may increase the

cost of the technology so it's much better in my mind to try to work through and facilitate with the players to understand really what is possible? >> could you do that vehicle-to-vehicle? i started looking at this and thinking well, if i'm a major automaker could i introduce it in my vehicles by myself? it would work across-the-board that it might be you know the tip of the iceberg to start to get that technology out there or said something that is just no way, it's too dangerous. i might get a false alert so you can do that on your own? >> is also a lonely discussion that you would have. that is where the government has to -- but consumers will determine if this technology will work or not because if they find value in it than the car manufactures will put the technology into their cars. i always come back to these two

aspects, the consumer side in the market site plus the technology. the government can create innovation by mandating some of those aspects if it's proven that it can improve productivity. that will be the main motivation for these technologies. those two aspects are benefits we can realizing considering that all of us, any country in the world wants road infrastructure means we have to get smart about using the existing infrastructure. that alone i think motivate these technologies. >> i think we need to distinguish nvidia from self-driving cars. in one case we have an infrastructure component that is the real goal of the government and we alluded to getting into this question of the fcc. this is a tricky proposition. on the one hand we are faced with an opportunity to have

massive gains in totality rates that connectivity would usher in that requires a major investment by government and on the part of manufactures. a major embraced by consumers but it also requires a certain spectrum potentially. and this is where the organization of government doesn't fit in the dna of the fcc is not necessarily auto safety. it's wi-fi. it's the internet. the it's a very different perspective on life so this is a bit of a challenge for us. >> am i still on? i thought i was cut off. it is a huge problem and quite honestly we expected that david would maybe make some kind of an announcement on spectrum and making sure that the spectrum is available but the payoff if you look at it in reducing injuries by 80%, just look at what he

could do as far as reducing gasoline and look what you could do is fars reducing time that is wasted. it's incredible and the challenge is great. if you look at it and we talked to all of our members about it and the question is are you ready to make the investment? well what is that investment? is that standing behind your product for 20 years on nvidia and where's the liability? that is where we go back to the original question and firstrade for me in the 90s with it then nets administrators that said the technology is working so fast that we can't keep up within the problem the manufacturer has is they run with the technology and if the regulation is something that is different than what they have invested in that's the exposure that they have. the way we have been dealing with this issue is by having very good communications with not only than its administrators

and others, we are regulating bumper-tobumper-to -bumper. we have seven or eight agencies that are all regulating how we build our product. we need to have that collaboration and i forgot to senator lee on that you know back when it so was created in the 60s it was like hell no, we don't want to go as members and that is changed dramatically and have to change for us to be a look come up with a more cooperative arrangement so we could solve the problems together. no one has all the answers. speech on a quick thought on that vehicle-to-vehicle and the vehicle infrastructure. i think a business case of the magnitude of lives that could be saved and the property damage and the congestion i think that's pretty clear but to get to that point we have got to get to the consumer and the driver base with the connected vehicle where data will be shared and vehicles will talk to other

vehicles and not small task. it's no surprise that even today with all the technology a small share of cars are connecting. we have to get to the consumer base comfortable with the idea and what the benefits are and what the value is before we can jump to this feed to a high-end b to the max to the mac so there are steps we need to take before we get to that point and that is trying to get greater adoption of the connected car trying to get the consumer base comfortable with the benefit and greater adoption. that includes things like privacy. >> that is one of my questions. too often during these discussions the gating factor is us. we all think we are great drivers but we are not all great drivers and we get this new technology in the car and it's the least that thick. is that the gating therein do we have to retrain drivers times a

thousand to get a hind the wheel of these vehicles or is it incremental? speeches to piggyback on the last thought. we have to take steps and i just got a new car. it was this the that every page said cd or dvd so i don't know how big it is. there is an education process and is an industry we have to make these things intuitive but i think especially with the next-generation buyer they are not going to need it. first of all they won't read it. they in the connected lifestyle. they will be used used to this os generations go by i think there is an expectation of connectedness. i think there's an understanding of technology that many of us didn't grow up with but we have got to start and we have to start now because we can't just go straight into v to v and hope the world is a better place. >> it the same time you're absolutely right we have to educate more consumers on the

benefits that those technologies were sent but consumers get that fairly quickly and we just completed another study with consumers with the u.s.. to be honest we describe to them what it really represents. car to car medication and 25% of consumers say i want to get that vehicle because of the benefits. 25% is a huge number for technology that people haven't even experienced yet. i think consumers are willing to accept this because a lot of them are implants about how they use technology and other aspects of their lives. the self loans and the tablets are influencing people with regards to what technology can do for them. we have to emphasize what that means in automotive contacts but consumers opening up to this. that is one of the fundamental driving forces for the adoption and interest in these technologies. consumers are ready. one more step i want to share with you. from the same study we did with

self-driving cars and that's a tech knowledge of the most of us have not experienced. if you ever get a chance to do that, do it. it's a 30-second rule that i set up for myself. the first time you step into one of these cars you freak out. the steering wheel goes like this in the car drives up after 30 seconds you say that's cool, can imagine what i can do with this car. two years ago i was in the google vehicle where someone was cutting us off in the car reacted smoothly to this. i could never have done this. i love driving soot that mumbai realized with tears in my eyes that the machine can be better than me. in the study that we did 38% of u.s. consumers say they would want to get self-driving vehicle functionality in the next vehicle. 38%. >> and andrew and then hillary.

>> you want to hear from first? >> go ahead. >> it interesting that we have a the convergence of two very dynamic sets of issues. one is connectivity. the connectivity sets of issues are being driven quite a bit by the smartphone and consumer electronic devices that we all wants to use and stay connected. on the other hand we have this desire to be economists because what we have seen from the google vehicle. quite honestly we have kind have been on a path here of automating generally mechanical functions on the vehicle for several years. all of a sudden these two very dynamic sets of issues have accelerated their base and they are converging in the same place on the vehicle. what has happened is that you have a lot of entities now

saying all right how do i react to that? that isn't my traditional sort of scope. so now they are challenged with okay hideaway deal with the spectrum issue whether it's fcc and nhtsa in terms of providing the bandwidth for ds or c. etc., how do i deal with 4g lte etc. so you have a lot of dynamic issues. the one thing that we realize in the automotive industry is whatever we put on that the akel we wanted to be safe number one. we wanted to be safe. they can't fail in a it can go to the blue screen of death. it's got to operate seamlessly and flawlessly get on the other hand we want to be responsive to our customers, the ultimate consumer of that is going to purchase those features and functions. all of that is possible but we need to do it in such a way that it is effect if and it's

affordable and we truly can benefit from it. we don't want to have our technologies legislated or mandated that drive us to a solution that ultimately won't pan out because we won't survive on one failure. we wanted to be done right and secondly the industry needs the opportunity to continue to innovate so that we get proven solutions that work and we understand the ramifications. so we are on that pathway but in the meantime we have got the smartphone. we have got the tablets and we have got i watches and wearable devices. all of those things present challenges to us. >> one of the things i would like to offer up though is at least in the v to v and v to i space a lot of good great attorney and certainty that exist now is stifles the issue on a couple of fronts.

as an automaker probably not going to deploy this technology in our vehicles right now if you don't have certainty around what is going to be the end result with the spectrum under debate right now. our technology might look very different than it would if we had certainty that we had that spectrum for our use and the only our use. so there is uncertainty there. there is uncertainty whether nhtsa will mandate this technology or encourage this technology would do nothing about this technology. that's a different proposition based on what they decide to do. if it's mandated, it's mandated and we are all in. if it's not mandated we as a company have to make a decision are we going to deploy it on our own knowing that our toyota vehicles will only communicate with toyota vehicles and hope the technology technology stays away to sell when other companies come on line that our cars are all talking to each other. right now i think all the auto companies are frozen until we

have certainty from the fcc and nhtsa about what this landscape is going to look like going forward. >> it strikes me that again in europe they are looking not vehicle-to-vehicle but getting those cells sandra save get information are there down the road. we get into this probe data but they are not there yet. it strikes me in talking with automakers there are major automakers that if two or three decided to do it that would establish a de facto standard. whatever anybody said in terms of her son ages i don't know if anybody is willing to do it but it's a lot of bartok i guess about that. at any rate does someone want to add anything before i say something else? there has been underlying talk or scuttlebutt before the show

and during the show about who controls the dashboard and what happens when you want to make those connections at the moment. a lot of rumors about what companies may try to do in terms of taking over that dashboard. whether certain company with a certain kind of phone is going to make your dashboard look different than it did before. and whether that is really a great idea or not. there's also a black area effect why would i do that if i don't know if the phones funds going to be here in five years. it may be popular now. i don't know if that is just not an issue as far shoot are concerned. >> it i'm not speaking from a automotive perspective but if you've read the steve steve jobs book was showing courage he to do because it's enlightening there's a section in there about his strategy of an open

technology. in the book he talks about the one industry that is ripe for the opportunity to own the entire experience is automotive. he has done it in his industry in apple industry but the one remaining industry is automotive or you can control that experience from end-to-end it now you have got connected car producing a lot of suppliers and you open the door for somebody else to describe the dashboard. if you believe in this philosophy and the success of controlling that ecosystem in and there's a strong argument. both models have been successful so to the last question jon i think there is going to be a point when somebody gives up the dashboard and yields to somebody that provides a great user interface. my kids ask me about it all the time, why can't you just pop it in and run it on the vehicle so at some point there will be that

base but there'll be a conscious strategy to move away from owning that experience in the end. my guess it's probably going to be somebody that needs that brand to lift to do that versus somebody that is that grand parity with one of those providers but that is just my 2 cents on it. >> i look at this slightly differently because it's not so much about control. it's about influence that you can have over that dashboard. it's really the customer. the driver first and then the customer. that's the last puzzle that would allow them to have their ecosystem and tap sitting in your car but i do think looking forward in this relates to what kevin said that maybe not the auto industry would come to the same level as smartphones and the car would become the coolest device out there. think about this, the end of the

day the car does more than provide you with information. has a physical mission. he gets you from point a to point be. my smartphone can do that and i doubt that there will be a future of that in the next 10 to 20 years but that's the beauty the vehicle has. i believe that the automotive industry that is why this discussion is so important this point, two to three product generations will create products, cars that are so much more innovative and exciting and cooler than anything else that consumers have seen that eventually this whole idea of having these tech companies on top of the car structure will be turned around. my honest belief that you can do this because the car has much more of a controlled environment and you know somebody is driving or sitting in the car. here with a cell phone you wouldn't know what i'm going to do next. you have a much more captive audience and that's why so much more captivating.

i believe that could car will become the ultimate automotive device. >> it lot of dashboard professionals here. neither the top 20 companies in a recent bcg study, bcg did an analysis of the companies in the world. the autos are spending $100 billion a year on r&d. overwhelming private investment but not public investmeninvestmen t and that is producing cool cars. thilo is right on and i think this is an undervalued understanding in our society that the pace of change is rapid at the same time there was a study out last week i think it came out where they are talking about the case of -- and this goes to what andrew said about the fleet turnover.

they talked about selling 230,000 self-driving cars in the year 2025 in the world so we talk about self-driving cars like they are here tomorrow but it's 220,000 in the marketplace with 100 and 10 years from now and 20 years from now they sent 11 or 12 million units sold in a larger base. roughly a quarter of those in the u.s., roughly a quarter of all cars in the u.s. sold in 20 years will be ftc's so one level level -- one level the basic change is slowing gradually and on another level it's immediate and this is the coolness or where in today's cars you can buy a car that is kind of like an stc. you have adjustable cruise control and functional stc which

is better than std. [laughter] >> a good call but i would like to make one comment. i think first of all that's way too conservative. i think you want to see these being deployed much faster and secondly i think we ought to see steps of progression to get there. for example i believe in three years from now or four years from now we will have cars that are self-aware as the first step that means they can actually interpret what you do as a driver and what state you're in and look at the surroundings of what happens have put that all together, and analyze it and do things automatically for you that it will neck easier for you to go through life. i think the progression of innovation in particular will happen way faster than many of us realize. does that mean all of us in 10 years from now would have self driving cars that i can send up

to do my shopping and i don't even have to go to the grocery store anymore? no, but there will be steps in between. it's not so much technology. it's much more the question of how culturally and from a legal perspective we allow these things to happen. there was an interesting discussion today from audi. the question came up who is responsible for the problems and the answer was right away the driver. which kind of shows you that those legal legal aspects are the biggest hurdles, not the technology. >> just to make a point on that and i would recommend everybody if i can to see what bosch is doing out here. the dilemmas of how much control the driver will see to the technology is totally unknown. i mean it sounds great but the number of our members including delphi has also been doing a lot

of work on this. the question is, where is joe sixpack? is he going to build a fort in the liability issues associated with the? i think the technology will happen quickly but i think some acceptance to it is still a very big issue that has to be dealt with. >> yes mitch pointed out if you look at some of these cars now i have to admit it's got adaptive cruise control. if i take my hands off the wheel and it follows the highway are not doing anything. of course if i hit the next card is my fault. that is why wonder how much this will come in incremental steps and then it will just be kind of a natural thing for people to move to that. actually what you just said reminds me of something else and that question is there is some back lash to this whole movement and that backlash looks at airline pilots and says wait a

second, when we switched these to drive by wire look what starting to happen. the pilot falls asleep for something happens in the airplane and all of a sudden you have problems. i don't know how to somebody how to drive if their car basic weight had all these things in it. is that something that people are looking at now? >> we can go back and look where we started on the regulatory side of things. the industry has a tremendous amount of experience with being regulated on the product. when it comes to regulating the hazier it's another whole ballgame. i spent six years on mandatory safety belt use laws and taught hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort for education plus enforcement. today i'm not sure where that is going to come from. you are going to have to go through the consumer side of it.

the big risk for the manufactures you do something that the customer doesn't want. go back to the interlock on safety belts in the 70s for those who remember. people were cutting their safety belts out because the government mandated that you couldn't start your car unless you had your safety belt on. this is all uncharted area with the financial risk associated with that argues for a more gradual rollout although i think the problem will be the technology is coming so fast the company said great deal of risk and this is what the suppliers and regulators to try to get at first the right time -- the first time. >> i see the earlier you have this regulatory uncertainty of there as well. we have talked i would argue of the last couple of years will in the face about all the various policy obstacles and challenges that exist. we know what they are. we know there is the liability question and we know what these look like.

i think now it's time to turn the conversation to what are the answers to these obstacles and get the ball rolling so we can start to deploy these technologies. until this question is answered and we know what the framework looks like that we are going to be living under in the future we are not going to do anything. >> i just wanted to interject a couple of points in most of our discussions are comments have been around passenger vehicles. i would just like to remind all of us let's not forget about commercial vehicles. some of those applications may be more straightforward in the sense that commercial vehicles have professional drivers and they have a very defined beginning to end and it may be a better platform for initially establishing not only connect to

the more broadly but also automated operation. let's not forget about that opportunity and then the second comment i would like to make is we are looking at what is in front of us saying all right you know how are we going to control this? i think we need to step back and think about the broader issue in the broader issue is one of ability. some colicky mobility in the sense of being connected to things but more broadly as our society becomes more urbanized, it changes the context by which we transport ourselves and we transport goods and it may mean different types of vehicles and platforms which could become a great opportunity for connectivity and economy as we move forward in time. if you look at what some of the

prognosticators are saying relative to where the future of mobility is heading we are going to be more urbanized. certainly there are sectors on the east coast or the west coast and even in the midwest where the expectation is that by 2025 for example the band between cleveland detroit and chicago as an example will be more and more urbanized than it is today and that will mean a different form of mobility of goods and services and people. so in that context if you take the blinders off and think about that future, what does connectivity means and what does automation mean? >> to my way of thinking i can't imagine letting my vehicle to that but is that the kind of thing you are thinking of? >> certainly on commercial

vehicles. europe demonstrated further trains and they concluded that that -- completed that project last year and it was successful but with respect to our own personal transportation i mean we may be willing to accept a transport that comes comes to her home in texas up at some stated time and takes us to our appointments and comes back and picks us up and then goes off wherever he needs to go. that is a different mode of mobility of transportation. certainly our young people, given their declining proclivity to want to drive would be more receptive to those kinds of things. so we need to think about what that future might be in terms of what we regard today as transportation. it may be entirely different, so while we are focused on dealing with the issues of connectivity

and i'm not trying to minimize it. we still have big issues there, as well as economy we need to keep looking to the future to say all right how is this going to move from where we are to where we want to be into the future of tomorrow. >> i have only got a couple of moments so i will catch people right after. we will catch some of them right after. i would like to let them keep going. in terms of that connectivity to the investment not all cars have have -- modem now so looking forward it looks like that is exactly what's going to happen. is that part of waiting to see whether there is a regulation in not wanting to stretch margins etc. such is going to happen quick lee and get that kind of

connectivity? >> i definitely believe people are asking for it if that's one of the few things are companies are different shading these days because most consumers differentiation on classic automotive engineering isn't that easy to do anymore. if you're an enthusiast you can tell the difference between suspension and engine and the responsiveness and acceleration but for the average consumer doesn't matter. we talked about the younger generation who won't be interested in cars as much. this is the opportunity for the automotive industry to reignite the fascination that comes along with the automobile. the ability of a t-mobile used to mean one thing for a generation of people, probably most of us in the audience that the next generation has a different idea of mobility. there are bigger implications as andrew pointed out and maybe to take that further this whole idea of urbanization that people

come to the cities because that is where they work and where they play and have fun. it might be influenced by mobility is way -- as well. if i havoc are the types of self i can actually live further away. there are some really big implications but they compact vehicle is here to stay. i anticipate by the end of this decade 70 to 80% of all new vehicles will give you the option of being connected in the car because everybody wants to continue that lifestyle is an issue get into a vehicle. it's part of our lives. >> have been back to the apple question but also a question about standards and again every manufacturer has a different interface in their car. you can touch so many can't touch others. some were well with voice commands and some are terrible with voice commands.

there is a lot of noise over the last five years about some kind of standard. is that just a nonstarter still in the automotive is nice or will there be some coalescing around some kind of guidelines that could become mandatory in 2016? >> can i jump on that one since i was chairman of the technical standards board for automation automation -- automobiles. i think the key is that any standard any guideline you don't want to legislate the technology. you don't want to say this is the way to do it. i think what we have learned that the industry knows how the key standards that are necessary to enable the introduction of the innovation in our industry. i think what we need to do is what we have always done and that is to collaborate and work together and find out what the real issues are, establish the necessary standards and guidelines that allow us to

drive the cost down but at the same time to facilitate innovation because you get the dust solutions when we are able to compete against one another. it also allows us to differentiate ourselves based on our brands. and so what is necessary for the area of connectivity is yes we need some guidelines and ultimately some standards but that is not something you -- that's something we need to work towards and get some of those on the mental foundation established and that will help us move forward a bit faster. >> i think you have to differentiate between stapling stapling -- safety applications. if you're talking about where the screen is and how long you adjust the dial i think guidelines is the way to go.

>> suppose all the navigation systems had to react within two seconds but it doesn't happen. something like that can happen. >> just is a reminder for those of you who don't follow the industry as closely as we do, tell us what it is that you want us to do. don't give us a design standard. don't tell us how to do it. tell us what you want us to get accomplished and that creates that flexibility and competition have become so important. the other thing is that the planning process on the vehicle runs three to four years out into the future. the other thing is we talk about this and we always like to say if it's regulation we know what the regulation requires us to do and it gives us the lead time and began phase it in over product cycles and production cycles and then finally that we

have the flexibility to compete with each other to accomplish the objective. >> can i just add to that? regulations when they are predictabpredictab le and stable server purpose. i wouldn't want anything we say to be interpreted as anti-regulation. all that said regulations to take two to three years and the rate of innovation is faster than that. if we want nimble coherent policy that makes sense it does need the guideline based on multisector base so software designers and everybody else need to do is the stuff that makes sense for the consumers. [inaudible] >> by the time it was, by the time they impose regulation.

>> was already accomplish. >> the integration of the technology started years before and so there was a lot of learning that occurred before you got to that regulation and got to that standard. so you still need to anticipate that. there is one other factor and that is we are no longer just a nationally based industry. we are local industry. all of the oems and suppliers for global organizations and so the one thing we cannot afford and the consumer in cannot afford as having different standards, different guidelines in different regions of the world. that only serves to add costs. we want this to be affordable. we also, it also will add complexity which means you have to have more complex designs. which can add challenging issues and so well he we are focused

towards north america we need to do the same thing on a global basis to ensure we have a set of guidelines and standards that work consistently across the globe. >> did you want to say something on top of that? >> no ,-com,-com ma i'm fine. >> there are two other issues and we just have a few more minutes. i remember seatbelts and i still drive with people who do not want to put them on believe it or not so that's still happens that the texting was the most obvious one. there's a 150-dollar fine and i can count the people going by me that her texting while they are driving of every age. it's not a generational thing at all. is that something that is ever going to help because it doesn't matter what we are going to do enforcement wise. steve this is the perfect

example. they want to still be able to communicate with other people. in my eyes we have to figure out a solution that would allow you to do something like this in a safe manner. saying that you can't do it period is not going to cut it for most consumers and unfortunately they violate these laws and put other people in danger. we need to do studies to help us predict what is going to happen in future. 89% of vehicle owners are concerned about distracted drivers using the internet for using their phone. everybody has the definition of what that means. that is again where technology plays a big role. the guideline we also have to say -- [inaudible] i want the car to be smart enough to differentiate between me driving on the highway and

texting versus sitting at a stoplight where you can do all kinds of other things that the law says no, it's either/or. that black-and-white mentality just doesn't work in this context and that is where innovation needs to set in. maybe the car can send out tax automatically. >> anybody else? >> i think that this goes back to the behavior issue we talked about earlier and i think technology is going to have to solve the issue. if you look at the young people today they are constantly in connection and they want to be connected. they won't know the differentiation between traveling down the highway at 68 miles for our stopping a light and then you get to the enforcement issue. many of the laws are secondary enforcement which means the police can't can stop you from texting. even if a policeman pulls up side-by-side and you turn off your texting they can do

anything. that's a real enforcement issue and it also says where is it on the criteria of importance to the policeman? it's really down their low so i think technology is going to solve that. it's wonderful that the technology is moving so quick lee and we have all this connectivity and everybody really enjoys it but now we have to make sure that technology takes care of it, plus education and responsibility for individual users. i don't think that is what the solution is going to be in the long run. >> it would close where he started that texting is the perfect metaphor for the failure of government not to cause they're not trying. the nhtsa guidelines deal with the integrated system but the real issue here is texting which is not addressed in the second that relates to that is if you get stakeholders in the room like david suggests in the

beginning instead of talking we ask the go and do it we find ways to use technology to combat a problem. .. >> on the next washington

journal, focus on the u.s. automobile industry with live coverage from the d.c. auditor shelf. guests include david shepherd sentiment detroit news washington bureau chief and david strickland, former minister of the national highway traffic safety administration. also speak with representatives of general motors ford and toyota. washington journalists live on c-span every day is 7:00 a.m. eastern. turn the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> january 22nd marks the 41st anniversary of the roe v wade decision. a number of organizations along with members of congress who are against the legalization of abortion will participate in the march starting at the national mall. our live coverage begins at noon eastern on c-span. and later in the day house secretary kathleen sibelius, a

u.s. conference of mayors meeting. less coverage it to 37. >> i really did. first of all, was not elected, so it did not make that much difference. i did notice, though, the difference between being the vice president's wife and the president's wife. this huge. the vice president's wife is the thing. nobody cares. the may use the one thing as president's wife yet made the news. pretty quickly. >> first lady barbara bush of website. were see it saturday it a zoo on c-span and 7:00 a.m. eastern live monday our series continues with first lady hillary clinton. >> now, more from the consumer electronics innovations summit

examining the government's role in innovation in start-ups. silicon valley in new york city, immigration, education, and patten reforms. this hour-long event. >> okay. as think people are trickling in. you will go ahead and get started so that we did not go over. welcome to our son of policy innovation panel. i am excited was not trying to make up analysts nervous the did mention that when i tweeted about this panel of mark cuban favorite it. if you let the pressure is on and this is a big sort of really salient discussion that is interested in that i think we're going to up to accomplish with the panel has a ramifications for all kinds of businesses, whether there are new, small, brick and mortar, tank business, so plead is a wide-ranging conversation and i am looking forward to it. so what i am going to do, i love

to put a face to the name. i will have each panelist introduce a more herself and give two minutes about your company and what you're doing it now will start here. >> my name is clear, co-founder and ceo of tell which is based in san francisco. we are in error in venture accelerator. our mission is to empower underdrawers. you work with companies, a blue-collar link to entice service are in now which is a crowd funding tool for the homeless. to bring them into an office space, the time, for then see funding, structured curriculum and everything they might need help to businesses ago in scale the cities across the u.s. >> ceo of a company called aerial which is a television but form. >> i live in las vegas 70 years.

have a small technology company year. we built several platforms. still running to. currently on the ceo and founder of its army, and the lifting platform trying to support community to technology. we allow global revenue to be spent locally. so, you know, we allow people to break down the barriers of geographical regions. if you want to buy your buddy a drink in new york and it's as birthday you can do so no. we support local community full retail price. some. >> ceo and founder of a company called stop that. and also the managing director at upstart.

>> img exports, a co-founder of general assembly, a global school for technology business and design six. our vision is to build a global community, individuals empowered to pursue work the love, and we do that through three main ways. we give trainee in practical skills to help people be competitive in the 21st century still. we can provide access to opportunities is give people confidence, skills, and freedoms in one career when we get in the context of a network of practitioners, to bring yours, and the participants were all mutually invested in each other's success. today we have had over 8,000 students come to one of our eight campuses around the world says, new york, london, san francisco, l.a., boston, d.c., connecticut, sydney. and we are growing next year in the year after that. we have a lot of exciting programs, web development, ux

design, product management, design and marketing, and we also offer a lot of the same programs for fortune 500 companies as well as an internal capability building tool. >> hi, there. josh metals and. thank you for spending part of your day with this year. i am wearing two hats today. one is in my day job i am based in san francisco. before that i was the start of founder and before that i was a political hack. but i am one of the folks who helped co-founder an organization called engine, a nonprofit that focuses on helping represent the voice of start-ups and the entrepreneurs and government. citizen organization about 500 members all across the country. and we have spent a lot of time helping educate members of congress and their staff on various issues.

dahlia that the state and local level. a lot of really cool stuff. al to get some of your insights into the issues that impact your company across the country and even here in nevada. >> i want to remind you that if you're going to to read about the panel please feel free to use this cs2014 and stag. you have properly seen it up here, ids 2014. our policy panel. so i want to start on that note actually would ask each of you to sort of answer this one question. at the different ways that each of you answer this question will probably inform the conversation after that. to kick things off, what is, from your individual perspective , the single most powerful thing that the government could do to encourage innovation. also with you. >> i guess i would say keep an open mind. be creative, beyonce panera of. instead of saying no right off the bat, chided think about, you know, the idea and have it could

potentially working your community. an example of light throughout his rockford, illinois. about a year ago the mayor approached at sigell this online platform that is kind of like a marketplace serbs for graphs. basically rockford had very high unemployment since but also a history of manufacturing, how could we think the interesting ways said brig prevent -- represent the skills of a community already has. they created a program to basically teach members of the community of to build the business to market the skills they already had and this is a become sellers. they have done extremely well. that is an incredibly unusual partnership, not something you let the governor of the bat xbox >> what is your opinion -- encourage innovation at the start of level.

>> and not sure that they can do much. a little bit around the idea the bandwidth to me. especially, you know, in a timely look at companies like ours or other technology companies, big internet access is probably a cheap internet access is probably the best thing they could do stuff. chess. >> silicon valley has shown us that there is no shortage a radius or great people to create those ideas. so there are two things, financial policy and regulation says, regulatory policy. if they can get one right it would the beneficial to us. but if we -- 99% of all businesses are killed through lack of capital. you know, the government can put the policies in place to, you know, make it so that we don't get sued by patton's control,

all things, they have the focus on financial and regulatory policies. >> expectations are low. >> i would have to set financial policy. >> i think that growing of entrepreneurs is something that the government could really assist with. getting involved with start-ups nbc's and funding, is complicated individuals who love to take their ideas to the bank's level, how to implement them, 11 this -- eliminates some of the rest six so that they can apply for various a accelerator programs. the government can help by creating a non profits, providing grants to local communities and governments. and so individual cities and towns as states can actually create workshops of programs and environs were people with ideas can come in, learn, and get access, not necessarily to

financial resources, but to mentors and to team members. as a lot of that happening organically. there are a lot of places in the united states where it could be happening bifurcate of. the workshop to say what is this startup process, the iteration, li put a team together, who money to work with. at the those are fundamental skills sets, that education creating environments which is definitely something that the government could help ... in step away and let the local government create their own environments and partnerships along the way. very valuable. >> at think you need to talk about government, you talk about it. you have cities, states, the national government, a different

policy organizations as part of that, staplers and a lot of different interests and that each level the ways that they can help drive innovation are totally different. you know, we have been lucky enough to meet with tons of different government leaders and all of those different levels. finding and how to get the ga to come to their town. you know, i have had meetings with crazy, you know, ukrainian oligarchs who want to know how they can have the next facebook happen in kiev sites. and it is pretty funny. everyone wants to be then a silicon valley. when i tell them is silicon valley is a 20th-century concept the future, decentralized, globalized, and they're going to happen all over the place. and so, you know, from our perspective we the talent is one of the biggest drivers of that cluster. so we think that local and state government especially commend the federal government can do

the most by ian of the way, making sure that you are doing, enacting policies at all different levels to make sure your town or state is a great home and a magnet for great talent which also involves making sure that people are retrained for the 21st century, they have the skills the news for the industries that need those employees. it is to do that. it was london. in that was partly to send a message of this visible phenomenon that we were trying to be a part of. the individuals who are over educated and underemployed in all the cities all of the world. in the overarching theme in smart regulation. governments are in place to protect their citizens, and as a result their is a natural

inclination to try to understand the contours of law and what that would mean six. will we try to do is really help to make the connection between the latest developments in what that means for regulatory policies that we have in place now or the future. what we're seeing is becoming mainstream. the things we care about at the start of, the things they care about, a set of entrepreneurs, primarily, were thinking about i t. end some of the clean tech. a lot more i see. we think of the internet. at present it all this set of issues that we spent a lot of time thinking about. you have already seen the copyright. more cutting on other topics like patents that transcend, but first and foremost is seems like access to capital of tamil already. his talent. the believe immigration plays

zero large role in that. dahlia thinking, federal reforms to the things like digital privacy, digital due process. they'll really matter. you're going to hear me going through it with me is really this general notion of government matters. it's here. suckling away. government is fundamentally good. a lot of people would want to argue. consequently it is groups working hand-in-hand to try to understand how we could take protective measures for citizens well at the same time allowing them to have the best service possible through innovation and invention. and consequently that is where we're headed. that think will spend a little time we're talking about the patents and immigration which are to very real issues that the state levels. it seeing smart regulation and we are seeing progress toward good policy fees being put in place. >> i feel like you're wiggling.

>> we work with a lot of urban focused entrepreneurs begin to solve problems that have been identified by municipalities as priorities that they have been unsuccessful study of the road, and a lot of people are into the idea of promoting government does this sort of want of great ideas from to bring yours and wages have not done that to be the case. with a really excel is a pr group for start-ups, the chief innovation the officers, chief technology officers of cities get a lot of typewrite no and ultimately identifying new capital sources, and they're up the ones that are connecting them to important power feeds, regulators to get help them navigate that complicated space. will they are good that is sending tweets commando me to say that to a negative way. they add a lot of legitimacy to people coming up with unusual business models. we have the start of, that which

is doing crowd funding, definitely like a lay out their idea. but they were really early on and build a relationship. and got him on board. when people in the community started asking what is the city doing creatively about solving these problems this is of sure many of you have heard, there were some problems of the space. he is able to point toward a very young company that i really get interesting partnership. >> i feel like is important to said it is not -- one of the notions i find a lot of entrepreneurs will accidently adhere to is the idea of governments should get out of the way, it does not really have a role in cannot really held. i just them over the belief that

that is pretty naive. i know it helps early on. what you end up finding here xbox is great in particular staff who want to understand, a lot of them are users of technology, a lot of them are adherents says. they just don't understand yet it at the same time play with examples as sophisticated as possible, and gauging more municipalities earlier roncesvalles trying to change that contours'. the same goes for housing. comes up very frequently. the same time appointed jake that is cofounders. their good that being ambassadors.

there's certainly denizen francisco, and that really helps we then find worrying about sitting and trying to understand what doors they can open sites. >> i don't think they you can ignore government is fighting a municipal by municipal monopoly battle costs. l.a.'s the ftc doing? taking these deeply entrenched monopolies in just shaking the month. when that happened those monopolies don't take that lightly and have invested a total of money in government relations it will do everything in the power should you go crazy

doing that. but i think you're going to feel a lot more of that happen. the public policy and our team so a public policy. >> if you want to play in these industries that are little trickier that involve building something meaningful there is probably some incumbent. you're going to have to have people lawyers cited the government level six. >> government, from the question of government is policy. is the short-term issue. it take generations to take effect.

breaking, you know, a taxicab authorities. they have so much relation ships, like he said. power and it's hard to overcome them. have taken possession of that fear. that law is antiquated. the fact is someone in new york by someone in l.a. and drink. he never touched it. there are lots of policies that adjusted place allowing for entrepreneurial efforts. >> less lawyers. >> i'll fix a lot of things. >> in terms of education, i

think that there is a fundamental lack of people in general in the sense. it is a problem we're struggling with everywhere says regardless of whether you're in san francisco. bill the application, put together a system, create the hardware. there is a serious lack, and not just in terms of understanding as well which really has to start. a place the government can step in and say at the high-school level, why is it one of the present requirement, the periodic tables. there is no fundamental understanding of what ac malice the men there are people that a using these. the fundamental understanding of how the things are engaging in work. if we can leverage our government to give more curriculum at a year under age

tumor earlier time, we're going to start to see changes in terms of keeping talent and maintain talent and growing talent in america in our own country. then again i think that immigration reform is important and is something that i think we're taking steps toward working don't. we also need to think about will we're doing here to foster innovation and create an entrepreneur said contrive the changes fall word. that rarely happens. i would love to see, you know, computer science as one of the science options and nuys school curriculum, or language option program. >> oppose the argue that if you had the government seized two choices to force different curriculums to schools, programming code and be more is a very mindset, they created a financial opportunities for investors in for people to be able to create more startups of the more entrepreneurial.

he will teach more kids up to be an engineer, i start a startup. access to could teach millions of people of the code and created at a program that teaches that. people take advantage of that for themselves people cannot take massive subsidized loans. providing a valuable service, supply doing it. the values be damned. and it feels to me the that the pace of change that is incredibly fast. and accelerating every day. and this infrastructure that is the government is that really designed to deal and intended timeline. they were just not set up for that.

and so as you think about that it is understanding the you have a stake holder that is release slow, lumbering, beholden to a lot of interest interest. have the best deal with them and bring them in as a stakeholder that helps you get what you want which is more innovation. >> among the bit curious why everyone is fighting as the example in that they have made a name for themselves the especially adversarial. i know it was mentioned then obviously they all have relationships. but basically in my mind a lot of the startups that we hold up and bring in to work with our entrepreneurs, yelp, aerobee be have taken a much more collaborative approach and a lot of that is kind of like asking for forgiveness and going direct to consumers because you needed to advocate an your behalf. i think that there are other

examples in start-ups that of the better job of collaborating in have been more successful because of it. >> a dozen roses negotiation strategies. >> that seems to be the central question of the panel. work with government, or quit the initially, work with them from the get go, or do you, you know, take a battering ram to the doors. once you are in the news are negotiating. and it does to leave no -- >> that is for asking for permission. >> right. >> i think that would be death to most ardent companies to ask permission. it would be almost impossible. >> what i found this part of why engine was created. full disclosure, but it was to help start-ups get in the doors earlier in their life cycle because if you in gauger lead is not like there is this desire among congressional staff and

elected is to regulate businesses because fundamentally realize that they will create jobs. in amazing economic staff. surf ahead consequently when you go in drolen this is what we're trying to build, this is how we can create opportunity this, you do find a willingness to engage. the there are many good examples first that we don't talk about as much. with begin disclosure they get bad rap in a lot of ways off. some of the geographic entries the mine and a panel as well. for every one of those that would really smoothly. that said fest him one of the

fun things i got today fifth, oh, man, really want to work. they have this release we if you can, here is white. and they gave me a little educational page. it was causing them some arctic. that, to be, felt education, felt like they have to the system. but nell they cannot have the service, and it was fairly light weight. a small defensive mover -- maneuver. they learned a lot and taught a lot of other companies to rekindle profits better, but per the main point box above the more you engage a better result you're likely to happy being dismissive is only going to yield his in adversarial profit than yields terrible dividends

on both sides. >> that would completely agree with that and that that we have the biggest gift the start-ups have been given. in government circles at all levels there is a conventional wisdom that tech and startup and innovation is the task force in the economy. some it is true. it has become a drug addict belief in a way which means that when you come in and you have a conversation, this is really interesting, a potential press release about how you're supporting innovation in the community, they will listen. it feels to me like that is something that you can use greatly for your benefit if you understand that is the free market people are looking at. that is not to say that there still are not entrenched interests that will start to oppose your and find ways in july of individuals.

they too, online, go directly into a four year university, an awesome program, the students loved it. to get accredited they had a partner with another credit is university in ohio, in the accreditation value which is of a government body. >> but a commission to interest interest which takes the trade association of incumbents, looks as that as scant and decided with no warning and no communication to shed the entire startup dempsey says. they raised $30 million at 200 employees and it went from potentially having the valuation above one under million to zero. without any governmental oversight, with anything it was

able to do that. so there are these nightmares scenario. you have to be aware that a lot of times the kids inside government to a realistic about who is for you to do is against you. >> his usually been our experience the regulators are close minded hick, usually they're trying to fit a square peg into a round all of. the wrong regulation or a lot of ambiguity. data from the other day who is trying to of pantex. i don't know a lot to us of this tax form is your asking for the name of my hotel and obviously that makes the sense. is is that there needs to be some effort on the part above start-ups but also regulators to go unrecognized certain things need to be updated, and a don't

think they offer a lot to a lot of different types of communities and it is a question of how to accommodate that. it is not like people don't want to pay its taxes. it literally did not know how. >> tells in capital, the two issues, as they relate. but there is some merit to the idea that government can help lead serbs do that would serve as the tiny but like a recipe for achievement gap since. is there a place where government can go where little bit beyond pr? the debate at home talent.

immigration reform alone will not even close. >> trading policy that fosters entrepreneurship. a local investor who is investing in real estate and investing in a restaurant are so high risk of rigidity, some tax incentives spin. to invest in the startup and the community that would create jobs , but city for that community the tax incentives are there. all things that start, you know, at downtown project are so lake or meant this to all of these different places, implements and influence in the community to serve be more a part of creating new businesses, new jobs, new opportunities. >> your employees, and what

about if they are engineers? i assume you don't want to hire. >> we have a lot. >> the governor helps nurture the people who are not orange burgers who were with them and my guess. if the kids are going to u.n.l.v., the average city as soon as they graduate, is local government that these to create a bridge to the for those kids to stay here for especially if they're getting gloves in nevada spending going the san francisco to pay off those loans. there needs to be better policy to create talent, faucet talent, and buried to your community. >> in the nation in general is not bound by geography. there are people -- by live in san francisco. d'agata to memphis twice a month to try to bring resources that we have an abundance set.

the resources are not just there and other parts of the country, and there are hubs in areas in accelerator's and mentors, a huge one as well. a big job for other countries and innovators and entrepreneurs to get to as ofs. likewise said, this is happening everywhere, and there is really just not a dialogue among local angels in tech startups, yarn, high-risk companies, this is all it thing. the industry. to get to the people who have made a abbatial investors in that community of men a lot of money to tinselly invested startup companies contracted teaspoon of what is happening, why you should invest it 3-person team here. his hold a conversation about what is happening, and i think that this is a place where government can come in they create, like he said, some sort of incentive to try to create a

streamlined from the investments going into different areas, the comfort zone, out of boston, austin, chicago. putting some of those resources into communities. that the united states and american be innovation says capital of the world. let's do this thing coming in at think it really needs to distribute resources financially more broadly, but build an entrepreneur ship at a very ground level in communities such as it does not exist. that think that is definitely one under% to an area the government can get involved in there so many talented and entrepreneurs that have a dream and the vision, and of all start-ups are necessarily innovative. lots of start-ups, business

models, revenue, traction, they can go to an accelerator. those entities. what happens, those entrepreneurs that have a vision and that the entry for company sets the don't know where to start. that's where the government can create these local incubators, accelerator's, workshops where people can come in and build of entrepreneurship. tsk. >> the u.s. government has done a phenomenal job of creating such a positive environment. a lot of people don't remember the cause, but in the late 70's when the government changes regulation, pension funds could invest. there has been a misuse of those regulations, unintended

consequences, capital gains, personally, i think, absolutely ridiculous because just of the logic does not data. i think the government has done a tremendous amount of incentive prospective costs. we keep coming back to it. there is is that talent. talent is two things, capital and talent. there is ton of capital, and a shortage of talent. offs. >> at think the challenge, with all due respect to our capitalistic system, the governmental institutions create scale impact. i do not complemented. in the net could you pick your discipline. you have to excel or die, and that was it. >> even though we get to our full-scale we will still be in the tens of thousands, not bonds of thousands of real the employable people, although i think hopefully we will have

impact beyond that. would say that when you talk about talent, and just keep thinking about what new york city has done so well. comes down to really three things that they pushed hard for. it pushed for broadband obviously wages -- you get to another country. you don't realize until you go to another country how bad says the infrastructure is. to, they have done a lot around real estate because real-estate is a huge problem for start-ups in the head of a lot of stuff from posturing that. it is a round talent, and and and things like run buses up to mit to end trade more kids to graduate to come to new york with things like that. this is about more liquidity for the ecosystem. the rot in but that they can use to create whatever they're going to create. they're not picking winners, not try to hold a one sand. they're trying to get more input to the system instead of

developing end. and i think one of the biggest things that the federal government is done in the past year is obamacare for fostering innovation. there are too rigid things. all of these kids can be of the kids -- parents of complaints. that is used. secondly, there are health exchanges. you can buy without a group beyond health care plan. those kind of things enable the talent pool that make leads to all sorts of interesting organizations start-ups a new pools of talent. as we think about that, education is a much calamus longer battle. we are talking about fragmented school districts governed separately, and that the state level of full we even get to the federal level. that is not an easy battle. a lot of this innovation will, the system.

the good news is we live in this society that when a product is better you can gun by. it's a beautiful thing. >> access to funding in the amount of talent available varies dramatically depending upon the sector. so as we work with the urban impact entrepreneurs and social impact on osbourne cars we two-thirds of applicable is front of the bay area. of 4% to acceptance rate, a huge number of applicants, and they come to us because we are one of the only groups interested in really early stage seed funding him. above the third film, will who would qualify as urban impact entrepreneurs here, and we found that after normalizing for demographic factors they're less than half as likely to secure a seat funding an early stage. a huge disparity, and a lot of it has to do it the back of many of them are working on physical products or services, working in

a new economy. just a little more reticent to take an early stage respond. there is lot of money out there, but in terms of where it is being directed he does not necessarily spread equally across the ecosystem. as a community is you think about the kind of an entrepreneur is you're looking to encourage, i think that taking into consideration the kind of investors the your partner within the perris you want to push his important as well sit. >> there is success that is worth sharing. really has to do with the fact first. they were educating residents and even when the and innovated him with in private industry.

face the same institutions have set up crushing the ability vitelline to continue to want to invent within the university system. we forget that the university of illinois, there's a ton of credit. but when you start looking at the pace and rate of innovation is starts changing dramatically which is why we talk a lot about things like patent control. government again in the education space. i use that as a segue to talk about the fact aware educating a lot of technical talent in the same public institutions. register on educating people who have the ability to stay in this country. it is the proverbial, you know, we and the diploma and destined to go six. there have been a timesaver form, there have been slow, problematic, and highly political. there is lot of will to see

immigration reform occur, but none a lot of weight. it has been coming off of that size, we have to then remember that a lot of these, again, let's talk about where we are right now. we know that just over for jobs are created every time you hire somebody, workers temerity from busboy to the local cpa. you have a lot of ability to generate roles and responsibilities and abilities far beyond just computer science, for example, or make the or whenever it is. you are actually able said rated entire population by creating these jobs. the weight that i like to think about it, the short term and the long term. we need immigration reform, nell, long overdue, to the talent we are sending end of the country, to the talent that once come to the country that can't. and then we need long-term to think about what public

education means an elegant continue tatarstan that government fundamentally since it is at the core of our public education system. and how does this industry work with the government to help it better adapt to market conditions. the comfortable examples you heard a little bit about your sex, let's let the market determine. i think personally there is lot of truth to that. we'll another life is not that simple and there are certain things by public education that was specifically set up to, perhaps, avoid short-term market situations. and so we need to take a step back and look and say, okay, what the public your's is due for a rest cure "or some of those great stories, how do we insure the continued to occur and how they trickle be a specific geographies and institutions. and then you really define the rising tide support squad. >> i am proud of us because we have not even talked about that

so far, but there is only ten minutes. a kind of feel like we should a tiny bit. in this talent and capital serbs or the patent issue lies, how salian, are relevant, and terrifying is it for this panel? six. >> okay. so when i talk, to bring your stow inevitably there are three things that come up. one is conveyed used to be talent in excess of capital. the we have seen his patent controls, coming up time and time again. sports the contribution to a lot of that is it is a very viable business model. just a quick summary. patent control tends to be nonpracticing entities that have acquired the intellectual property, perhaps of the defunct company. oftentimes the patents are very

broad, not well defined, they can apply to lots of different things, and they built the business since i spent -- sending demand letters from fortune but lenders to small mom-and-pop, everyone from retailers to merchants on a street and sent them scary letters. we know the you have a scanner site that allows you to e-mail yourself the scanned document. the you therefore violated a patent. you offer free wi-fi. you're violating our rights. and so what tends to happen fast, the organization's will settle. and so there is no way to look at it other than how gary shapiro put it, this is extortion. and it has become an ever increasing storage sites. one of the worst examples we have found is, in fact -- well, actually, maybe is that even the worst.

they're bad ones every day since. that may ring a bell for some of the folks here. but the thousands of demand others were sent. and oftentimes when you do sell you have a confidentiality clause associated with it. so you cannot talk about it. you cannot share, and it becomes hard to know that thousand newsletters without him maybe everybody settled for a couple hundred bucks six, but that adds up. >> do you find that is a deterrent for the rest of the panel to an entrepreneur and how urgent is bad reform? >> a have not actually paid any attention to the issue. i do know a little bit of litigation. and costs my experience is that the structural problem that i think we face is the court system, not necessarily just was the problem is that most of us cannot afford the typical

litigation that will run you 15, 20 million, somewhere and then arranged costs. and not very many companies can afford to do that. so i have not actually pay attention to the whole package control issue in one way this. >> you have been busy. >> i have been slyly occupied. yeah. >> it depends upon the stage of an entrepreneur you're talking about. early state judge appears that we work with don't think about that because they're too busy trying to figure out how tiresome body. to be honest and the majority of the regulations they deal with the municipal or regional and not really thinking about things like patents which does not mean it is not important antidote is up in the base, but they're not thinking about it, and it is not deterring them are starting a company site to limit the growing it, but not starting it. >> there want to invest in the company. that is something of worry about

maybe my partners and by our wonky, but we watched swiss the patent filings. that is particularly freaky. sector does matter to some extent been treated is starting to hit our users. really freaky because that is not so then just about our company. as about the millions of people who are using the products. >> if the government created better opportunities for businesses to protect themselves from the patent controls costs, you know, then it would be away for them to fight back. to think that you have a plan, ibm 10-year plan to work for $150,000 a year. you save up a certain amount of money in the open a bakery are coffee shop and might get sued by a patent comptroller, cease and desist. basically a shakedown to be paid off. they don't actually want to go through it. it is just to shake down says. the government finds a way for you to a fight back again some

bell cited just the potential industry, business is doing group together says the or have some sort of method to be able to come a point out that these patents are overreaching, too broad, and that, you know, they would be removed so, it would change the shift. it is everybody. everyone has to wake up. everyone has to e-mail, it will affect everyone. and at that hockey stick ramp of how aggressive these guys are getting in and getting away with it has to be stopped sooner than later posts. kidneys everyone's support to do so. >> that think in terms of -- i've looked at algorithms. when you're building in the algorithm, your building it because you think it is a good solution and you are not necessarily thinking, i wonder

someone else has already created this of rhythm, wonder if this is a technology is someone else is done so. you're coming with it typically a room six. you figure your first writing it . the less they have a symbol vita necessarily think about it when the huge advocate for open source. i think open so skirt it -- open source code is one of the amazing incredible opportunities fast that we can leverage xbox -- strongly mr. spence but for technology, for square for the web.

we are taking one idea and adding elements to it and doing different iterations. think it stops innovation saw dead when you say i created this . you know, and that is not necessarily speak to the policies that need to change and that change, but i would love everyone to take a step back and say, do i really need to patent this? can this be open source, can everybody benefit from it and use it equally and can we all kind of innovate as a society? epic of mr. taking steps in the interaction says maybe it will be solved. >> the litigate that. and supercenter them are successful fists. both sides. they're overreaching in the patterns that have been issued

for all these tickets have been to profs call. obviously if you're fighting that many endure winning six of the mother needs to be some reform and on to paris and business hours ice the large and small to have a road map and the method to be able to push back. >> are read somewhere that when you go on your iphone 6n pulldown to refresh the actual actual--- action, that was patented. it became part of a typical user experience for users on mobile devices when that when you pull them superior to me that does not feel like something that should have been a patented, you know, a user experience, but it was commanded created a lot of controversy. in general been pushing for advocating six, take a second look at what it your filing for patents on. it can be creating a better

innovation culture as a whole and actually sharing in creating sets that user experience for the different devices. >> we have about five minutes left, and i would love to get some questions from the audience do we have any? we do. i don't know if they're is a microphone. please, will try to repeat the question for the terrorists. is there microphone? yes. >> is killing around. >> companies lost mitigation gusts. >> direct litigation costs. this proportionally targeting. this leg cyanogen just that set.

please. you could argue the overarching theme. gary shapiro is personal fate. god love him. we have a question right year. >> a great panel. one of the policy topic to be that since an academic studies says that said that bankruptcy as far as how fast you can discharge, oftentimes startup founders tried since before they get that major companies say. europe, one of the big problems, depending upon which state it takes 16 years to fully discharge bankruptcy ended leaves sustain, reputation old. so i'm wondering why so dominant that you went bankrupt or anything like that, but the policy around that. can we talk about financial policy? one of the areas and is

particularly important to startups. >> interesting. no one has. no one will come to it. >> well, one of the benefits is you don't really have anyone else's money to lose face. that makes it a little bit easier. but and silicon valley in particular there is this notion that, you know, every time you fail ifs it is a run on the bedpost. the failed five times. gummy. and so strong. i think there is really kind and idealism says. you keep going and keep trying. i think that is important. very few get it right the first time. and did not stop. i am working in my fourth company. in reality i probably started san. you know, you get them off the ground and some work and some don't. the duties you can in very quickly and figure out camino, what you need to be better the next time. ..

>> i will go out on a live a little better. hathaway who is the head of research choose the most knowleea