second generation, third generations. so we have sort of separate tibetan settlements and separate for school, always -- so now refugee community is quite well-established. so then, meantime, right at the beginning i fully committed the promotion of democracy, since my childhood. old system, something wrong. and outdated. so we must change that. not just a decision to change, will not work. step-by-step. work for democratization, since

1960s we start. then 2011 -- 2000, 2001. we already achieved elected leadership. then -- [inaudible] then 2011, i now completely retired from political responsibility. so in meantime, i take -- i take not of responsibility effort to educate younger tibetans, you see. so a thousand year old knowledge which come from india,

knowledge. i quite often challenge, some person, author, described tibet and buddhists. they are totally wrong. out of their ignorance. and half i think the tibetans themselves, you see, in popular -- [inaudible] not much difference is about their knowledge. so i think the impression of tibetan, too much emphasis, importance of dalai lama. not steady. so i think the people got the impression tibetan prison is something like lamaism. so lama have some kind of freedom. that is totally wrong. i always described myself as a

simple monk. just one of the buddhist monk. according of the system, 250 precepts. no exception. [inaudible] same way. and steady, regular study. i think yesterday i mentioned, i have remain, ceremony, i remain all through. but as my study is concerned, the same. so my tutor keep with. no exception of dalai lama. [laughter] they treat me like lazy student. i think it's very good. so, therefore, i really emphasis

study, rigorous study. traditionally, 30 year study, memorize the most important rules text. then explain each word according to come into the again, even the masters. so to have knowledge, now i notice, buddhist philosophy is concerned, i think tibetan study is best. i think we kept over 1000 years, the knowledge. so i ask my longtime friend to say whether my brain, something useful or sharpness or not. [laughter] all this come from, you see,

tibetan study, which come from -- yesterday also i mentioned, it's skeptical, skepticism. not easily accepted. analyze, analyze, and look various factors. that develop holistic view. that brings realistic view. realistic view, then kerry realistic action. then satisfaction come. so these i felt very, very useful, and also there's some potential, can make little contribution for helping of humanity. never think in conversion. [inaudible] i think many years i never mentioned about next life or just, certain buddhist concept.

we simply discuss about mind and body and emotion and how to do this. with the science, not with -- it's all right from beginning. some people, some people use the word dialogue between buddhism and modern science. i say no, this is wrong word. dialogue is sides which comes from buddhist teachings. so we can go buddhist science or indian science and modern science dialogue, science, not religion. not faith. so i think, i mentioned maybe, you see, out of 300 volumes, which is our text, so i divided, first i felt content of these 300 volumes.

we can divide three parts, science, matters, and minds or external world or into the world. that part is science. not talking positive or negative. simply what is the reality. that we can treat as a science. then on that basis, with this concept -- [inaudible] databases but practice mind. that part, so philosophy -- no. science and philosophy and religion. science last about three years.

because -- >> creating a compendium from the classical indian system. >> so that already completed, almost completed. so much, we finalize, immediately we start to translate, translation, english translation, hindu translation, chinese translation. then many of our friend, mongolians, koreans, they always already, you see, to translate, and russian. so, therefore, that's my main job. not political thing. right from the beginning, the point of the person, they carry. if i kerry administration, i think everything -- spent

everything would be confused. [laughter] [inaudible] go to different countries, different places, have to show you my teeth. that's all. [laughter] one time. later, indian president, krishna, very good scholar. modern education in oxford educated. and also great philosopher. one time, looking some picture, everybody smiling. and he mentioned we are advertising our teeth.

[laughter] so that's one of my jobs, like that. i think that job also, you see quite useful. that job brings small friend more smiles. except in some cases. in germany, i want to share with you as a joke, you see, one time in germany, easy, -- you see, one function i agreed there, then of course my nature, whenever i met a, i see something, someone, i always smile. so that they while i'm quite young, lady is coming. as usual, i smile. i think that lady got some suspicion. [laughter] why?

why this strange person in distress or something, start small and quick so i think she may have got some suspicion, distrust. [laughter] so she looked -- then i also turned your. [laughter] a lot of it is give smile. sometimes negative response. [laughter] although even animal. sincerity. [inaudible] they also responded. >> thank you, your holiness. >> so only question, since many asked, have the ability to show decision or not. still, this question still remains -- mosquito.

i asked quite often, some scientists, one location in oxford, professors in frontline. so i asked of them, nobody answered. so now this is your work, see, a tiny insect, which level brain slice have a building to show appreciation. that's still i don't know. so answer must, from you. >> so you have to sacrifice more insects. [laughter] that's the life, isn't it?

[laughter] >> so if i summer's -- >> thank you, thank you. so sorry. [laughter] i am wasting your time. sorry, sorry. spent not at all. not at all. i think concerning leadership, endurance, self-confidence, study, clarity of thought, and good teeth. [laughter] >> add baldhead. [laughter] >> i would like to poll our final presenter in into the hilarity, otto scharmer, why do you join us by presenting your thoughts which will include thoughts concerning leadership in what is called for. thank you. >> your holiness, arthur, and arthur, ladies and gentlemen, i

would like to express my deep appreciation for being part of this conversation this morning. and i would like to add a few remarks on the beginning conversions of leadership, systems thinking and mindfulness that we can observe in many areas today. i'm an action researcher at mit. i spent the last 20 years of my professional work in the context of organizational learning, innovation and change. and during that time i have the possibility to work in a lot of underground change projects across cultures and sectors. and also have the opportunity to research projects among others, kind and giving 150 thought leaders on innovation, leadership and change. and many of them were practitioners. soliciting to the practitioners,

and listening to the experiences in the field, i would like to summarize my own learnings from that with four simple points that i would like to add to the conversation this morning. the first one is that there are two different sources of learning. learning from the past, and learning from the emerging future. learning by leading into, future possibilities. and when you look into my field, organizational learning, almost all the methodologies and all the kind of best practices that are done in companies and so forth are based on the first learning model, the experience model which is basically learning by reflecting on the experience of the past. however, in working with leaders and business, government and civil society, i noticed that

more often than not leaders are facing challenges that you cannot address just by reflecting on the experience of the past. sometimes the experience of the past that we have are not very useful. sometimes the experience of the past that we have is the very obstacle to come up with a new way of framing a situation. so that then let the question to me, is there a second source of learning, learning by sensing anger and actual future possibilities. and if yes, how does it work? which leads me to my second point, and leads me to the process that i have seen being at work when these situations, learning from the emerging future are having.

so in order to send something into emerging future possibilities, leaders have to engage in a process that is moving through the falling -- following three stages. one, after clarifying your intention, observe, observe, and observe. go into a deep immersion journey where you go to the stakeholders and the places that can teach you most about the situation, and listen with your mind and heart wide open. number two, everyone coming back and sharing what they experienced, and then retreat and reflect, allow the inner to emerge. synthesize everything you heard and connect that with your own deeper senses of knowing, with who you are and what the kind of change by what's the kind of

story we want to be part of. and then when a sport or an inspiration of the future shows up, number three, in an instant. so put into long planning process but exploring the future by doing through rapid, small-scale experiments that generate feedback from other stakeholders. the third thing that learned is that to do that well, for leaders to do that well, leaders have to engage in a new type of leadership world, which is then inner cultivation work. by cultivating three in the instance of knowing which are the open mind, the open heart, and the open will. what i mean with open mind is the capacity to suspend our habits of judgment. and to look at the situation

with fresh eyes. what i mean with open heart is the capacity to empathize, the capacity of looking at a situation not for my ankle but from the view of other stakeholders in that situation. deep, creative entrepreneurial call that is dormant in every single human being. your holiness, yesterday you said action is more important than praying and blessing. so this process that i just outlined is a silly trying to link these three, by kind of linking contemplation observation with action. there are many leaders today, or if there are several leaders today that the body these principles. steve jobs is well, yeah, has

been a practitioner himself, is well-known kind of for his acclaim that the only way to do our best work is by following your heart. do what you love and love what you do. another leader i learned a great deal from, the late -- summarizes own transformation change experience as ceo with the following sentence. he said, the success often intervention depends on the interior condition of the intervener. so what he meant is the success of what i do as a leader, as a change maker, depends on the inner place from that i'm

operating, depends on the quality of attention and intention that i bring into a situation. one liter that i see also greatly embodying these principles is i.e. fisher, the founder and ceo of a very successful women's clothing company, who not only like steve jobs is kind of using practices, cultivation practices herself as an individual, but to also, like twitter cofounder evan williams, does with his company, introduces kind of mindfulness practices on an organizational level. and eileen fisher, every single business meeting is at the beginning, there is a moment of mindfulness. it's not too long, maybe just a minute, because it went in the meeting has a possibly to connect with the present moment of my own experience and with what we are here for the two

together. of my own intentions. my fourth and final point relates, comes back, your holiness, to your various remarks yesterday and today when you talk about the larger situation, the global crisis situation we are in, you know, diana also talked about that earlier, the earlier panel, the copanelists. and you said everything is interrelated. and you also said that taking care of others is the best thing also for ourselves, for our own future. so it's not really an alternative. so my fourth and final point relates to the global pressing challenges that we face as a

community today. i have been over the past few years been involved in much stakeholder work in education, in health, in business, in sustainability. and from my experience, the key leadership challenge in all these projects and all these huge, large projects is the same. and it deals with, it begins with the fact that no single organization, either government or business, can solve what we faced in education, health, and so one and alone. so we have a collaboration challenge. and in all these systems will need to do, something very some become witches we need to bring together all the key stakeholders, including business, government, civil society. and we need to move them through a process where they begin to

make sense of the larger situation together, identify some of the key systemic issues that we need to address, develop kind of a vision, and attention of better ways of operating and exploring in small-scale hands on prototypes we can learn from experience. n. scale what's working. so what i'm saying here is, richie, you were talking about -- when you said that i thought what is really the leadership challenge today? leaders are the stewards of the plasticity of the collective brain, kind of that, should we switch on in terms of the collaborative opportunities that we need today across all the silos that are a way of institutionalizing things, has

created. and that's really i believe kind of the code leadership challenge that we face, kind of how, what we can do to be good stewards of switching on kind of, activating kind of the neural plasticity of the collective field of collaboration and interaction that we have. so there are many examples of that, you know, including kind of the sustainable -- over 70 companies, in africa in a project that significantly improved health of all stakeholders in new media and also consult asia around the initiatives which is convenient, hundreds of stakeholders from all three sectors to address the diversity and the marine come sustainable fishing and food

challenges in the region and globally. and so in summing up, and in all these, and in all these challenges, the fundamental challenge for leaders is the same, which is to move a system that currently interacts based on ecosystem awareness, which is a narrow definition of ecosystem awareness, that i'm only aware of my own kind of view of the situation. so a different way of operating where the interaction and collaboration is based on a shared ecosystem awareness. with ecosystem awareness, i mean an awareness that is focusing only on my own well being, but also on the well being of all other stakeholders in the system. that in my view is the key leadership challenge today, and is the causal effect that determines the quality of

results that we generate in the system. so in summing up, i tried, i tried to make three points. the first one is that there are two different sources of learning. learning from reflecting the past, and learning by sensing to moving into an actualizing, emerging future possibilities but secondly leaders in order to activate the second type of learning need to cultivate three new leadership capacities, the open mind, mindfulness, paying attention to our attention, the open-heart, compassion, and the open will, which is activating the deeper created on one of the core that is dormant in every human being. and the last one, the last point

is that the number one leadership challenge in my view to be is to shift the field of interaction from the current node that is based, mainly based on ecosystem awareness or a narrow definition of that, the one that is more based on the shared awareness of the whole and that is designed to create results that address the key challenges that we face as a community. your holiness, my question to you is this. so we have seen many great examples of benefits, applying the power of mindfulness and compassion as individuals. and yes, that's where the starting point is. but what we also see today is that we face major challenges that require, to use the power of mindfulness and compassion

also on a systems level, on how we evolve the system as a whole. that would be -- i would be very interested in your view, your thoughts on your experience in that. [speaking in native tongue] >> i think you know better. you already have experience. so my thinking is you are emphasizing education, so that's the fundamentals approach. i think people who never sort of experienced these things then all of a sudden, you see, person do that, they are a burden.

>> becomes a burden. >> so through education, i think like yesterday, taking care of some sort of physical health, for example, the exercise or these things. ..

then eventually into society and individually becoming leadership otherwise i don't know. >> so you will know better. >> it's a possible task to put this all together in just a few seconds. we come together across extraordinary divides. we have come from the left and the right and the world of science and spirituality from leadership and organizational existence, redesign and re- imagination and we've have an open dialogue. this is a kind o the kind of pof compassion that doesn't

recognize party lines come individual differencesandindivie all care about each other. we care about this planet that supports our good life. >> i'm sure aei and people who may be hearing this from around the world are also united in this conviction to truly care for each other and for our world, to practice the politics of compassion as opposed to one of division and argumentation. so it's been a great pleasure and privilege to be a part of this conversation. as one sets up an intention at the beginning of a practice so that it may be fruitful not only for oneself but for others that selflessness i always think one should practice gratitude and dedication at the end of such a practice common an, and perhapss dialogue we could also be grateful to arthur brooks and

his staff are generously hosting to the sponsors that supported it and to you, your holiness to the courage and inspiration to all communities as a marxist to join us here to learn something about capitalism, to critique the practice dialogue with respect and a good hard. let me invite you appear to close the session. [applause] >> thanks to all of you. one person we haven't had a chance to show gratitude is author james. [applause] we have reached the end of the session and the dalai lama is

off to bless others today. as we close the session please take a moment and to stay seated as he leaves the stage. and i do want to reenter eight-foot arthur just said to you -- re- iterate what arthur said to you. we learned from his holiness the dalai lama and our new colleagues from the mind and life in two to consider ideas with an open mind and a warm heart is a virtue and a blessing to all of us. it's important because we have learned the secrets of happiness. the secret of happiness lies within according to his holiness and the governments that we can also improve happiness in our minds and the minds of other people in the visionary institutions and the public policy. this is what we are dedicated to mutually coming and i think that the most important point of all is the blessings that we all receive today. the blessings that we receive

from open dialogue and that we receive from the human solidarity is important in this room an and asked as we did tode blessing most of all from the wisdom of the most wonderful man that we have met them so much time his holiness the dalai lama. please join me as we say god bless you and thank you. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> a reminder you can see all of this morning's event online at c-span.org. the violence continues in

ukraine the white house has released a statement saying in part we are outraged by the images of the ukrainian security forces firing automatic weapons on their own people. at least 70 protesters were killed in the clashes with police in the ukrainian capital. the country's president and opposition leaders had called h. roos on the negotiations to try to resolve the political crisis that we are asking you on facebook what do you think the u.s. response should be? a couple of responses says the u.s. should stay out of it and the response to that saying that then tomorrow you will blame president obama for not protecting protesters for allowing russia to take over ukraine. you can post your thoughts at

facebook.com/c-span. in today's briefing with josh earnest that is coming up live on c-span. the title is down to the crossroads in the march and it's a civil rights march that begins in memphis in the beginning of june of 1966 and three weeks later in jackson and you can make an argument that in many ways it transforms and approaches its crossroads. the call for black power was first heard and stokely carmichael unveiled that if you will bid way through the march

ended immediately generates controversy, it immediately generate a great swelling of enthusiasm among many black people and in many ways it ignites a new direction of politics. those changes might have happened over the course of time. but it was a dramatized miss a shift because it brought together the civil rights leaders and regular people, white and black from all across the country and could -- put this politics and created eastern economic highlighted the key divisions and some of the key tension, but also some of the key strengths that have long animated the movement. >> a look at the civil rights movement after ten eastern and sunday at nine on "after words."

the c-span.org website is now mobile friendly. that means you can access our comprehensive coverage of politics, nonfiction books and american history where you want, when you want, and how you want. the news sites defin be fine sco fit any of the screens from the monitor of the desktop computer and smartphone whether you are at home, at the office or on the go you can watch the c-span coverage of washington. check our program schedules or search our extensive d.o. library whenever and wherever you want. the new c-span.org makes it easy for you to keep an eye on what is happening in washington.

spectrum sharing with the top suggestions on ways to relieve the spectrum crunch this week at the center for strategic and international studies in washington created the defense department that tv chief information officer outlined steps dod is taking to free up the spectrum in ways the federal government and private industry can form part or ships to increase innovation while protecting national security. this is about an hour and a half. >> if people could take their seats we can go ahead and get started. i name is jim lewis. here at csis we are starting another round of discussions onf spectrum policy and the spectrum management. realizehe last i didn't realize the last one was so long ago but this is a te field that we have been interested in and we at csis we fve been interested for ated in while. with a we have a great panel.eral the keynote speaker is general

robert wheeler who will be giving us some information onme the thinking of spectrum management and a reallocation. m thanks for coming out on the day that the news outlets predicted would be one of unparalleled snow and blizzard. general, would you like to come >>o, i do >> i do know all the folks onpa. the panel. ot are usually yelling at eachch other so this would be anterest interesting discussion.anks fomn thanks for coming out today. i was a little bit late because frankly what normally takes ten minutes to get to the pentagonlh to hear took about 46 minutes tb be exact. and so that was a little bit of pain i get i think it really sucks to the national security issue as well as the issue and those are intertwined, those are

together and i think that is one of the important takeaways if you take nothing else away the national security and the economic growth and capability of the capability are one, so i think that is where we all need to think about this from the perspective area to the other piece i would like to make sure you walk away with is the international flavor. it's hard for people to fully understand sometimes to the spectrum pla played from the worldwide perspective, because while we can make a domestic plan if i have satellites coming over on the same spectrum that come from other countries that is going to be a problem because at that particular point resort to interfere in their satellites that causes a problem for them to help us when we need help overseas for the same reasons. so it is a strong international flavor that doesn't domestically get heard well but that is a big deal. the world has become small and there is no doubt of the internet and the way that we are connecting together it is a much smaller world and that aspect is a critical part of the spectrum to let me talk to you a little

bit more on our perspective where we think we are going because a lot has changed. there we go. if there is something to take him away from the bottom line spectrum ties all of the dod together and the other part of the aspect is if you are thinking about this in the three dimensions, think of the space dimension you see rolling across the top and the air dimension that is going back and forth and you have the three communication layers in that particular part in all of them connect together on voice, video and all of them have to be big with this across all three pieces. that is really what happens from the dod perspective we are

seeing that grow and grow some of me taken example. i am a b-2 stellar guy in a combat or noncombat situation and i have a connection to the satellite continuously. i have data coming in and i have a laptop that sits between me with microsoft office so i get e-mails and things of that particular nature and i have linked 16 showing all of the other it crashed into with the other potential in my particular screen. at the same time i'm getting voice and all of it occurs at the same time so i'm seeing the data on the separate screens and waste multiple in most cases coming from satellites and the terrestrial base and at the same time i am also starting to get little pieces and parts of the nonvoice type of the squeaks that buti understand that tell e the threats are so if you can intertwined those that a is an example of overseeing that

particular slide. next piece. i went too far. >> you want me to stop touching that. is that it? one more back. on this particular slide we are talking about the data and it's interesting. it takes a while to understand it if you took the top line, the traffic growth is stabilizing what we are seeing across the board and you see the second one, that stabilizing at the lower level. but what is clear is the amount of traffic is growing at 20%. so as the device numbers drop off as to how much we are growing every year, traffic is still going up. what is the theme? data is going to be the future and spectrum, that the key. so if you are growing at a rate that is somewhat stabilizing at this particular point more

spectrum is going to be required or the more efficient use and i will talk to both of those. we see the whole commercial broadband piece is tied to the economic growth there is no doubt about it if you look at the nation the way that i look about it is the light of the whole united states can you imagine the possibility for those that had a business perspective. added to every rule in the country and what we can do from the business perspective, this is about america's creativity into the american ability to stay competitive in the world that is from a military perspective as well as an economic perspective across-the-board so we are intertwined together and that is the clear message. the president has pushed for the goal at 1,000 megahertz or more if possible. we are definitely pushing hard towards the 500 we understand that perspective. that drives a lot of things. one of the natives driving technology.

how do you do this better and make it so that we are not whether you are the federal side or the commercial side because the message was clear here on the table it spoke to both of the federal aspects and the commercial aspects and so those are intertwined how do we get better across the board to use the limited spectrum that we have more efficiently and that's good for all of us. >> the slide talks about what we have to do try to weave the spectrum through everything we do has an impact whether it's electronic, whether it's talking to the web in leading aircraft and whether it's moving stuff from fedex. although this touches the spectrum. and every time you add one more piece of spectrum you have to be extremely careful of where it touches. that is a critical part of it because you can start to interfere with each other and cause problems and you can have a real issue. if you are talking about missile defense and you have a specific

frequency from the commercial aspect you don't use that very often and i'm thinking think god i don't use it very often. but otherwise you could lose thousands of lives and that is a perspective we have to understand. at the same time with some technologies in the dynamic spectrum, he may be able to use it at other times i in a guarane the priority is when the missile defense is needed automatically becomes clear. we were not able to do that in the past. we would have to have that frequency. for obviously the life reason. in the future of technology you may not have to do that and that is the key use of it and we will see that in many other aspects of the spectrum management plight. right here is what it looks like. how do i maximize my use of that limited resourcthelimited resoue that happen? that's where we were. think about the satellite states. i have satellites that are up there with the telecom industry needs.

and those satellites have been up for almost 30 years. 30 years ago we were not worried about the width of the spectrum, where we were in that particular arena. but to take the satellites down now and replace them with a new satellite because i can't change the transmitter on orbit would cost billions of dollars, so how do i balance it to not have to take down satellite access and obviously caused billions of dollars from the tax perspective and give the spectrum to the right people that need the right pieces? you can see every single piece of the parts from cell phones to radar, to the high-frequency, to the dod if you will fro well fre unmanned aerial vehicles all across via how to buy get the maximum out of the limited resource? slide please. so the spectral reconstruction. that is exactly in a lot of ways whabut i see the nation doing rt

now. we can build a domestic plan all day long but keep in mind they are frequencies across the nation as we speak. others come into the harbors from different nations and all -- think about it from the military perspective. if i'm going into some particular area kicking down the door i might not care what spectrum i'm using in that point but if i am rebuilding a nation or if i'm in the philippines to take care of the typhoon survival issues, i want to be able to use the spectrum that doesn't hinder their own efforts in the country. so i have to have an international level of spectrum i can go into and use all the time without interfering at that particular spectrum so that the important for everyone to realize some of the things across the world as the frequencies and that is also good in th business perspective because of the internet side and standardized you can also do standard across the world whatever it is you are doing if it is a new way and if you will.

and it is a radio you are trying to sell. here's an interesting conservative peace because this comes up a lot in discussions and i had the slides printed out for the congressional. we take it to look at the first. there's the three gigahertz which they call the beach luggage spectrum if you will. why? because the technology allows us to use very efficiently and also has good distance coverage so if you are a telecom industry type of thing that has good distance coverage could penetrate into buildings if you will, so why does cell phone works in certain buildings and why certain companies don't work as well might be the frequency and has been little to do with the spectrum aspect. if you hear a lot about what the federal loans, and it is 14.1% is allocated to the federal government in an exclusive basis at this particular point. it is less than half of that. the commercial use has been

allocated to 31.7. 54% is shared between federal and nonfederal users. so we are actually pretty good at it. so sharing is something that is happening today. the way that we do sharing today i would argue in the way that we do tomorrow is two different things. there's mucthere is much more et ways of doing it and much more on the way automated. as if you combine the more efficient spectrum capabilities than just the technology and the ability to use it in a more efficient manner from the sharing perspective you can open up a lot of the property very quickly. on the second part we talk about the three to six gigahertz. maybe there's rocks in the sand. it was pretty rocky. second most desirable 8% is allocated and the federal exclusive basis. 18% is allocated for the nonfederal and 74% is shared between federal and nonfederal

this is important in a lot of perspectives. back when the slide please. to do this correctly i have to take this into account. i have to take technology into account and how we are going to do the sharing in the future to make sure we get this right. federafederal agencies, nonfedel agencies, and for all commercial at it we get this right and we can make this a win-win situation for all. here's where we are going in the individual efforts happening right now and it's been an actual interesting one in my perspective. so the original plan if you can look 75 to 1850 was military and federal systems across the boa board. the plan was to go into the right which was a part of the broadcasters so we spent over a year building the plan because that is the normal way of doing business and then we moved to the new spectrum that is also vacated so it was about

$13 billion. if you look at all of the federal agencies across the board, it was somewhere around 17 to $18 billion all validated and verified members with multiple looks from different aspects. if you are vacating this you are talking about lots and lots of money. from the option perspective that wouldn't be the likely to be in the best use of the money in that aspect and we didn't get to their so they are 110% on the option and you wouldn't have gotten to the 20 plus billion. 1755 to 1850 as telecom broadband for other parts of the world. not just for the u.s. right now. the interesting part of it is a dod just got finished reading 1710 to 1755 an 1755 into the interesting perspective of this is kind of a jabber to my brother over here that we are

supposed to gather and there would be no more moves at that particular point, so we finished a march a year and a half ago and now we are back doing this again. the point is this is a never ending move so we just finished and that is what we expected because most of the equipment that we had in that lower band, we were able to tune into the 1755 that you are seeing up there to the 1787 bottom line to the whole piece is that it wasn't as costly as we expected. however now we are having to move again and it is more costly but we have seen interesting ways to do this. what we realized is we really don't. what we want is 25 megahertz. from that perspective how do we do this, can i come across to the other part?

we got compressed out of 1710 to 1755 so that would be a dual come crashing into for the multiple simulations a lot of engineers doing it and compression wasn't possible without large operational impact and we didn't have the technology to do it right now. the second part was what if we moved part of our systems and shared with the broad actors they don't want to vacate that's so if we share that particular band we can do this as a partnership and move the systems out of the 2025 to 2110 and get into the other band per se and allow the telecom industry to get into the 1755 to 1780 and leave a couple systems such as the satellites and just have a geographical sharing if you will come a geographical sharing because many of the locations were frankly industry doesn't have the need for a lot of broadband because they are in the middle of nowhere frankly. so in that perspective it is a win-win situation so by taking the highest priced systems leaving them in that band and

compressing part of them into the upper part and then moving the ones we can to the 2110, it allows us to do a very good marriage of industry needs and the dod federal users needs and have a balance across the board. this was the plan we came up with. it is a little bit more risk and it's a little different than the vacating that from the dod perspective, we realized that the vacating of the spectrum if you look at the reconstruction it is probably not going to be possible in the future. we have to think about this in a new way from the industry perspective it provides the best profit. at this particular time we could move on to 25 and technology wasn't really ready for us to be comfortable from the risk perspective to do the dynamic sharing on a large basis as well as some of the other efficient systems. this was the right plan. i believe that in the future we will have to go to a different

approach and i think the technology is going to push that a little bit and i think we are about five years off until we see on the large-scale basis some capabilities to do that but will allow us to get to more capability out of less spectrum and to have a different approach in the years to come when they come back for the next share of the particular spectrum which i could talk to at the end. bottom line is if we are going to have to do that in the future there is no doubt about it. what do we see? this is the strategy development. we have been reactive. that's one of the first things coming into the office. we need to be proactive. there's the need from the industry perspective for the dod we need to work as a team and be more proactive versus reactive. we have technology driven by technology but the technology has to be proven not jus just tt

the one or the two bases but a large-scale. when we are talking about the scale i moved before we are talking over 5,000 frequency assignments. python and individual frequency assignments and trying to make that particular puzzle come together as difficult if you do a test on one or two more things on the dynamic of the spectrum if you will that's fine but on a large-scale basis is the test we are doing right now. policy is a big part of the puzzle. what is the right policy to go forward and what is the destiny of the nation as a whole not just one agency. the regulatory piece. if i take technology to a specific level to deploy if i don't have that regulatory piece it's going to be years so that must go together in conjunction with each other because there are stakeholders. that is something i didn't

understand. being on the field making things happen we don't have as much regulatory but internationally changing the frequency could take ten years folks, so if you think o that the regular piece that could be a driver more than the technology. spectrum stakeholders tie all of this together and then of course the economics. the best way for us would have been to move from the band which is the 1755 to the 1850 to 2025 and 2110. economics said that isn't going to happen. so we did what needed to come up with a more complex solution, more risk but at the same time it will benefit all and make us think about how to do this better next time and it is already making us must more efficient than we are with the dod. how we are going to change the requirement for the future in other words how do we get more efficient while taking care of

the taxpayers of them line how do we do this and how do we work hand-in-hand with the industry to make sure from the systems we are developing are as useful for them as they are for us and vice versa so how do we use the systems together knowing on the battlefield today whether it is saving people in a situation in the philippines or in a true battlefield in the conflict, broadband data so it's important for everybody to understand this goes back and forth between the industry as well as the federal agencies. here's the perspective how we are going to do this. we are going to do with the spectrum allows in the official rollout of this particular month it will come out talking about how we are going to approach this in the future so we have to have a flexible spectrum. we see that as the future when we watch how technology is moving forward we think that is how it's going to go. we are not there yet technology by his. we are not there. we are working for that as well

and everybody agrees that is the way of the future and that right now it is clear to us after this last spectrum discussion that that is the way to the future. regulatory adduct ability, that goes hand-in-hand with flexible spectrum access. if we are going to use every single piece of the spectrum for a click of the operational agility that is going to be the key to us and so for example because i have a system out there that is only tunable on the satellite but we talked about with one frequency, i cannot obviously replace. that cannot be in the future. i have to put something in the orbit that has multiple frequencies or software where i can switch to a different band and not cause the problem to change it out on the orbit so that is an example of where we are at but there are more examples of where they can save thousands of lives in some place such as again the philippines or what we saw when we talked about in japan they had the wave,

through. the bottom line is we have to be able to switch to the differing to ban immediately so that we can control that ban. it may well be the receivers or transmitters that where we are going is in the software defined radio where we say we are in the span today let's go into this particular. that's okay maybe we can use that to save lives. this is where we are going. this is why it is important to be proactive. i am really scared about domino speeds to my area in this particular way. the driverless vehicle those are realities today. they really are. and they talk to the safety of life piece of spectrum flying airplanes, whether you are the google car. honestly i thought as a kid, and i'm dating myself, i thought for sure i would be flying one of

those things. my middle daughter wants to be the first person on mars she's 15-years-old and pushing hard towards that. so i see where the capabilities are going as far as the amount of data that we are getting and the ability if you will to do things from a theoretical perspective. it's important that we take that and manufacture to build those kind of things that is the next step we are going to see that change if you will in the whole fabric in our nation of the world and that is one of them right there. slide. we have to be more sharing in the future. that's going to require technology and pc and policy and working hard to make that happen. technological innovation. the culture change with everybody. the chief as well as industry. we have to understand from our

perspective, from the dod perspective, this is harder. it's more problematic and when you are focused on ten different things all over the world, literally, things are happening every single day. from the dod perspective and you are worried about the next threat to the nation. this sometimes doesn't have the same priority. but it does matter from a lot of perspectives out there and it makes us more people. that's the key it makes us capable if we do it right. partnerships and collaboration. we are not doing this in the partnerships and collaboration. i think there is a person back there that talk more about the public and private partnerships and that is what we are doing right now today that we had discussed because i think that is the key to a lot of our future out there. proactive versus reactive. proactive has to occur on both sides versus reactive. there is a global context and i'm not sure that everybody understands. i would argue some parts of the industry do not fully understand the impact of that particular piece to it.

on the deliverables what can we do today, with midterm. and we made a conscious choice for dynamic sharing for instance on the last spectrum change wasn't available from both a technological site as well a ass the regulatory side. but in the next change i think it will be and that is a critical point. government oversight and accountability has to be a team effort. everybody's stating their position with a line in the sand and we have to stretch all of our thought process and it's good in this particular arena. cooperative test ban. let's see if i can say this correctly. it's great to be the national advanced spectrum communication test network. one of the things we did in the recent issue that you had on a particular spectrum is how do we test something? we have someone from the industry saying that we have other folks and other experts how about a clearing house we

can actually work through and we can actually have an environment where we have the test environment available and they can validate all of the particular requirements they have come about within all of the capabilities and roll these out, and we can all agree that yes, the test results are the right test results and we can make decisions based upon that and what that is one of the perspectives that we had out there. so that is the final piece of the slide. one more slide. that is going to be our strategy is revolution in a revolutionary way. i would like to change that to the spectrum evolution. versus the way that we are going on that that is the perspective and that will be later this week. that's part number one. it's a visionary piece. what we are looking at now is the implementations of that's going to be electromagnetic

spectrum and in the integrated process it is a bottom line that actually makes this into the implemented action. there is a vision and vendors implemented action that will be done with all of the services and the departments in the dod to say how will we be proactive versus reactive in the future. that is the key on this particular one and i can give you example after example. >> [inaudible] >> it's been rolled out. you actually had one of your slides which is why i'm asking it had the timeline for implementation of the strategy. what is the timeline -- >> the implementation, you have

the implementation strategy and our plan is to fix it up on the six-month timeline to say okay what we do at the yogi, i will back up if we build out something particularly something new, we go to all of th the services it throughout the department and say okay this is our strategy where we are going i think it is a vision document to say okay does this make sense to you, does this make sense to do and we walk through from that particular perspective. we are getting people to understand okay this perspective and that perspective and we come to a common agreement that comes out. the second part is the implementation plan. that's where the rubber meets the road. if you sit down and think about and figure out exactly how you're going to do it and i will give you an example of that that was the secure mobile commercial mobile area with what we call the secure mobile, and then the implementation how we are going to talk this through to the services. what would you start looking at is how to do the acquisition differently. that would be one primary.

how do you use the spectrum when doing operations differently? you can walk right through this and that's where the rubber meets the road and we have to work for the individual pieces on what makes sense and what's good for the department. cynics of the six months is the near-term implementation if you will because you talked about the med and the long-term. long-term. >> it would even near to midterm. once that's done, then it has to be fully adjudicated on the implementation plan that you could think of as part of b on the strategy. does that make sense? >> with defense daily. what international partners are you working on when you are reallocating the bans and also are they protected or resistant in any way?

obviously i am not a spectrum expert so i just want to ask on that. >> that perspective is two parts. one of them is when we are working with international partners, the international telecommunication if you will it would be state department, the dod is a part of the team that we have here, and all of those folks go forward and that is how we work forward. we have a position if you will, and in the u.s. position that feeds into the u.s. position and then we go forward and that is how it is presented. from the partnership perspective when you go in some place, whether it's when you work for the country like rebuilding afghanistan or iraq or the philippines or japan, when you work with th the country's government where they will be a partner for the area for certain kind of communications that do not interfere with let's say the satellite. the second part was about the anti-jam. the frequencies are let's say for example we go from 1755 to

1850 to 2110. what you are talking about is not a grand jump in frequencies of some of the same capabilities apply from the anti-jam and it does take technological change but you do get the same key to the babies. whabut we are required to do is certified can get the same through technology the same capabilities and the same operational allowances if you will and that is the certification that we do. so the answer is yes. >> you said you were going to say a few words. i would be interested to know what the position is to open up to the more mobile ground-based users. it's not the dod position so my comment would be premature for

that particular aspect that we are working through it from the perspective of how do we do this from a proactive perspective on this how do we make sure we have the right technologies and the safety of life systems if you will are managed at that particular point and how do we take care of our partners and balance that? so that's the perspective. and at the same time, how do we get the technology to move faster to allow us to do these things because that is very difficult. there is no doubt about it no matter where you are in the globe from that perspective and so that is an important part of it. going back through to a comment for the 2025 where the dod is jumping in, one of the reasons why we like that is because of the fact that oversees it is not a broadband. so from that perspective it marries up very well with other systems that if we went into other countries we would be able to use that frequency without interference from host country

systems. so that is why it was useful from our perspective and actually that is in the 1755 to 1850 band which goes back. we have to be aligned as a world if you will buy the virtue of the interference that you're talking about because of some of those things so that the part of the discussion that we are having and i can guarantee on that. would be premature for me to comment even though i probably worked on it about two days of the week this week. some of them are chuckling. >> cyberspace lawyers are basically flashes of light and spectrum. has the spectrum merged in the department? >> of the electromagnetic is the piece in part. they go hand in hand together so when you talk about light you are talking about optical medications.

that is one way to get out of the spectrum, that is one example. the cyber aspect and electronic warfare, all of that together are one part of it so that's why it kind of weaves everything truleaves everythingtrue but thl point and cyber, radio, optical, everything you can think of. at its best it is a safety of flight issues of those are included in the cyber aspects. >> [inaudible] >> it has been the communication part has been a very fascinating part of it because to be honest if you think about it from the communication piece is the most important parts of after 9/11 when we flew across the world

one of the number one limitations was the communication piece to make sure we have the right people going against and not doing the right thing and said it became probably the weak point so i think that's kind of the aspects of where i got connected to this and it's been on the right ever since. >> ' mac that was a lot of good stuff. what we are going to do is turn to the panel of experts. i will introduce them very briefly. we will have some additional information. and i probably will do this in the wrong order. we have the chief of the office

of engineering and technology and one of the nation's leading experts on the technology part, which we heard about. we have a senior adviser at the nti eight. he and i go back and partners in crime for a long time so he's probably reluctant to get involved in the effort. we have stacey black for the external and legislative affairs. between federal and legislator would be enough to keep anybody to see that we appreciate you taking the time to come and talk and finally john hunter from t-mobile for the spectrum policy. what i would like to do is ask each of the panelists to give some brief remarks and we will start with stacy and go down the road. and then we will take questions from the audience. stacey, please. >> i would like to limit my remarks to the rule that procurement is going to take in

the mission the general talked about. procurement can be a big deal. the technology is rolling around as he pointed out in the keynote, and for example, he had an acronym called llmr which is an application for push to talk. this technology has been around for almost 70 years and it's gone from the two radios from push to talk release to listen to where we have an actual device that is a broadband radio that also happens to have the application writing over it. it does the same thing that the radio that required its own dedicated frequency and is used in theater or on the basis and we see as a company that push to talk is what i would call low hanging fruit being moved to a

broadband type of network and the base communications, mobile to mobile or from machine to machine are great applications where they are not legitimate in nature or kind of a broadband environment. in some cases it could be a commercial broadband network and a private broadband network they are a nice network. another application that was recently announced in the army magazine last month is what was called the combat training center upgrade for the range communication system and this has been installed what the system does basically it is like a laser tag system they have people with pistols and tanks and things like that and it is a laser tag system and we have installed the network on the

bases to actually communicate and put all of the telemetry and voice communication in a coordinated effort. this is all explained in the army magazine. but to give you some of the ideas, it placed the legacy systems for the range data management and communications, and they actually build power in these areas for the technology covering 95% of the training area. and now they are starting to use the devices. so as i mentioned before, it has like six bands and wifi, gps, $500 device could now be used in place of a thousand dollars that was application-specific for these combat training systems. and as a result of that, they doubled the number of instrumented entities in the combat training center battlefields.

6,000 dismantled in the 5,000 vehicle entities, 5,000 voice communication systems, 350 observer coach trainer devices into 1605 fire target engagement systems. so, here is a great example of where the dod has embraced the commercial technology and brought the cost down and actually started working in a public-private environment with a commercial broadband provider to be able to accomplish the combat training mission in the two bases. so this is a great start but as i said, it takes a new way of thinking in terms of per capita because now you are going from the application-specific building to a very expensive one-of-a-kind device to now using a commercial off-the-shelf system that had more of an operational expense to the very expensive capital expense. but it's going the right way in my opinion.

>> i would focus my comments i think on what the general talked about specifically around the collaboration and partnerships. i think that is so critical. i think that we have learned a lot over the personally i have been involved in the relocation effort for well over seven years now. and i can tell you we've learned a lot working with the dod and other federal agencies in trying to assess their needs and to balance their priorities with what we are trying to rollout. i think through that effort we continuwecontinued on and as mau know, we have the working group process that i think you know, put forward the unprecedented level of collaboration that you're seeing. we learned a lot from that and i think you are going to find when we talk about 1755 to 1788 is great to be an amalgam of relocation sharing. but in the end of the on the

collaboration making sure that everything gets set up you are going to utilize the spectrum and as we saw we certainl certae some challengeshadsome challengu have to work through those challenges and respect the requirements on both sides. even today, we still deal with some of those issues but in the end it is going to be a collaboration and working with the agency it is going to make these holdings work for both sides. so, thank you. >> i had a great talk with the general. the important point is we are all pulling in the same direction and i think i have never seen closer alignment between the thinking on both the federal side and the non- federal side with the appreciation we are going to need to find ways to accommodate all of the innovative ideas and

the growth that's coming. people talk and challenge the need for more spectrum and i ask them what did you do this morning and they all say they have checked their smart phones and they are checking at home with wireless and so forth and some of this dust that we saw on the screen you know is coming. the driverless cars it may be a bit further out but you get up in the morning and/or device is basically checking how are you doing today. do you need to go in and get a checkup. so this technology is enabling all sorts of new applications and is going to improve our lives and advance the economy. i'm just going to say a few words about the talk on the bands. what we have been learning as we have gone through this process you have heard reference 1755

for those that may not be as focused on all of the details why this is important. it is a piece that fits adjacent to one of the major wireless broadband bans. we have in our portfolio the spectrum that would match up with the companion piece to expand using the band that you've been hearing about from 1755 to 1780. it was a long and hard road and we still have a way to go. there was a lot of work on the broad piece from 1850. i think that in the end we made a decision the difficulties of the reallocation and at the expense when compared to the benefits really down the path but it's not an easy task as

general wheeler mentioned there is a need to transition out of the spectrum and there will be some systems that remain and we have to find ways to -- we've already identified with ways to share what will be there for some time. part of the solution was sharing with the van at 2025 that is used for electronic news gathering on the federal side. but it is not used constantly. it's between the broadcasters and the departmen department ofe and working out a way to share spectrum as a part of the solution. so what we have ahead of us is working on the transition plans and making sure all of the parties understand how things are going to be shared with and what the transitions are going to look like overtime. the second band i will talk about his 3.5 gigahertz and i

agree completely with the general that people view the spectrum below three gigahertz as the prime beachfront property in the navy of the three gigahertz. the federal side identified 100 megahertz of spectrum that would be made available. the biggest thing people focus on is offshore. so the sharing was identified as having exclusionary along the coast but that is all so focused on the ubiquitous white area. the issue in many cases for wireless broadband is capacity. people start focusing on low-power cells but in places

you need to pick up the capacity and have coverage but you don't have enough space. there was a lot more interest on button on the federal side and the kind of changes in the analysis that was done previously. following on the report that talked about the model that we have in the wide space using the database access to control. building on that model with the new generation of this marks technology they identified 273701 of the bans. so the ftc has proposed to do something new building over on the whitespace model is something sophisticatewhite spah

the spectrum access to control access to the spectrum through the devices either through the priority access and the general right to access to increase the efficient use and opening up as many as possible so that is still active and we are working with the ntia and the department of defense on how we can protect the systems that they have in that space. .. >> the u.s. had advocated a model based on dynamic frequency selection or dfs.

it was brand new, it was accepted by the world. we came back, found out that it took a little bit more work than we anticipated, so why is this so hard? beuse s you're searching for signals you can't always identify, and just looking for particular level to tell you whether something is there or not, often is not sufficient. so, it was really tough, and there were points along the way where it wasn't clear what we were going to come up with for an answer. now, fast-forward to today to wi-fi technology has evolved as a new standard that you're seeing on the store shelves, the 802.11. what's so major about it? it can offer data speeds of above one gig abet for sections. and so it basically needs more space.

there are different kind of radar systems in there, and the techniques that were used before can't be used without some adjustment or some other change to share with the systems that are in there, and you have already heard the question from the audience, also the earth exploration satellite system in there. so hairs -- there's a lot of work to make this happen. i tend to be an optimist, when you get technical people together to solve a problem, you often come up with a solution. maybe not always but more often than not. i just add that as we go forward, we're going to continue to have the exclusive use and the unlicensed models, but as searching former spectrum, sharing will be the focus and trying to figure out how we develop techniques to evaluate

both from an analytical and testing side, these new sharing methods, is a going to be challenge for us. so that we don't stand in the way of these things coming out -- our testing practices have to be at least as fast as the technology is rolling out. >> great. thank you. >> thank you, jim. thank you for having me. thanks for the reunion. and looking back at fond memories of memories of the old location at csis, working with paul and the spectrum policy task force at the fcc, and back in 2003 i pulled up the report from there, and a lot of this is kind of interesting to go back and revisit, and i recommend everybody do that. so paul and i came over and briefed former secretary schlessinger and mr. galvin, who were leading this effort.

jim invited us over. i can't remember before or after we had run into each other at our kids' school. we also had that in common. but i went back and just pulled it up where the back there kind of looked at the recommendations and it's amazing how these things come around. first recommendation is white house oversite. sense then they're been at least three presidential memos on spectrum, and a new spectrum policy team established within the white house. another recommendation was a spectrum advisory board, and at ntia we have a commerce spectrum management advisory committee, a member in the front row, jennifer. that serves the bill. there's also an interagency group called the ppsg, policy planning steering brown. jenna participated in that with

the cio from dod and the other federal agencies with spectrum. so there's a lot of interagency collaboration. reinforcing the international functions is not one we had a little discussion about, how that is still in the works. but we'll go into that. research to sport for spectrum innovation. that struck a chord and that's a key focus and one of the things that they're working on in conjunction with national institute for standard technology at the commerce department, and we're putting together a center for advanced communications which -- talk about the initiative which is -- would be under that center for advanced communication. so that's being implemented. and last but not least, the recommendation from csiis was a national spectrum strategy, and,

wow, that's kind of interesting. a couple days before dod implemented -- announces their strategy, which i think is important that it be technology-driven, and it's -- and then for these guys mentioned centered around collaborative efforts. and spectrum sharing. so, it's interesting. these things don't die easily and these recommendations, even though they're made a long time ago, ultimately somebody picks up and implements them. one other point. just want to touch upon regarding incentives. and spectrum. and then how incentive applies to federal agencies. those of you who stay at home the are thursday and friday

because of the snow, there was an announcement that came out of the white house, the office of technology, office -- science and technology policy, ostp, about a newer port authored by the science and technology policy institute, with a survey of a variety of incentives or recommendations for federal agencies to relinquish or share spectrum. so, they -- spectrum policy team in the white house put out a federal register notice seeking comment on the record, and i'd encourage folks, a 30-day cycle to take a look at that report. it's quite lengthy but very comprehensive. hits on all the major areas that would encourage or facilitate sharing, relinquishing of

spectrum, by federal agencies. includes things like user fees, spectrum fund, even applying a spectrum property rights regime for federal agencies, and kind of old-fashioned, command and control approaches to improving efficiency for the agencies that have over the years been proposed by various -- in various documents, papers, and things like that. so i'd encourage folks to take a look at that report, respond to the questions in the federal register notice. one of the questions that is most interesting kind of personally to me is the practicalities of the incentives. federal agencies are a different animal than the companies that are on the end of the table. the things that drive them, what i've learned in the last two years i've been back in the

government, at ntia, is their incentive is to perform their mission in the best way possible. so how can we get them to -- i think wheeler talk about a lot of ways at that time can be done, through better technology, obviously. money doesn't necessarily translate into the mission, especially if the folks doing those missions don't have control over the money. and property rights type scheme where you give agencies more freedom, more autonomy over how they use the spectrum, how to control the spectrum, can they sell it, buy it? divide it up just like the private entities? kind of reminded when worked on the fcc spectrum, the second dear -- secondary markets.

even the fcc did not grant secondary authority. it was limited where there is exclusive use of the spectrum. on the federal side that doesn't exist. there's no one single agency that does not have exclusive rights to the spectrum. it's shared among the agencies or between federal and nonfederal organizations. so, i'd encourage those who are interested in this area to provide views on the -- some of those incentives and those ideas. thank you. >> thanks, peter. reminds me that one of the lessons i learned in spectrum, you really need patience. so we are making progress here, and when you think about where we were ten years ago, we're in a lot better place. i want to challenge the panel with the question, not sure who would be fair to start with. thinking about where we want to be in ten years, what should she

spectrum environment look like in ten years or a bit longer. what's our goal here for where we want to end up? maybe you can start with that. stacy? >> we can circle around and too you last, too. >> well, i think that over the next ten years there's going to be a lot of new technology introduced. obviously spectrum sharing technology and i think you will see a lot more like the 3.5 initiative where the use of the shared access databases and things like that. that will be very important. there actually may be some software defined -- that are cost effective enough to be consumer-based. then also i think you're going do see more smart networks, and that's whether it's even in the wi-fi environment where everything is connected to a control plane. that way there is a master smart

that is actually controlling the communication across a variety of platforms and will make communication a lot more efficient and that's the next decade. >> i think to add to that, i've said this before in a number of forms. i think spectrum sharing is an evolution, not a revolution, i think as the general pointed out, some of the technology is there today and we're seeing great strides with the advancements, but by and large, there are a number of challenges we have to work through with regard to spectrum sharing. but in the next ten years, absolutely. i think we are going to start seeing more spectrum sharing type technology, particularly given the 3.5 band that julius talk about. i think the concepts of databases, sensing, i think on the five-year expansion, the

challenges with .11 c can be problematic in trying to figure out how to make that work. so i think there will about other types of applications with five years -- if it's not dss, then maybe a database is more appropriate. i think moving forward with -- i think the 1755, the 1780, we are going to see some sharing there with the satellite operations, geographic based, but then as we move forward, i think from the industry perspective, we're going to get an opportunity to showcase some of the features that lte has to offer and we'll be dog a demo with a vendor, and we invited dod folks to participate. that's next month. >> so, in the end the goal is that we're getting as much out of this space as we possibly

can; that the folks who come up with innovative ideas, new industries, have that opportunity to develop and swim policemen -- and implement them. from a technical standpoint, we talk about the spectrum about three gigahertz but when you get into the weeds of what is there and you start to understand that all of the low-hanging fruit, so to speaker wasn't so low to begin with, has been picked. and so you're down to what i mentioned before, 2700 or 3700 and you start to look, what's there? the weather radar that you look at on television every night to see the storms coming through. that's what's in there let's move them someplace else. you can't do that because of the physical characteristics that they need to be able to do what they do, have to be in these

parts parts parts of the spectrum. so how do we share? first, matters where they are. most of them are in places where people are, and so this isn't the classic geographic situation where the one system is in the middle of the desert and all we have to do is stay 200 miles away. we're down to doing things like, can i operate when he ray -- the radar is pointing in the opposite direction? and i can tell you it's incredibly complicated and hard, and it points to the need for -- when you start going down this path, of -- in detailed analysis and testing, because we're past the simple stuff of, we're just going to re-allocate the spectrum. we're at the cutting edge of technology and what can be done to getting a expose -- getting access and value out of that

space. >> well to look ahead ten years i need to look back 20. and look at the transitions that we have kind of gone through and the trends that i personally have gotten scared from. but the improvements that have been made -- i'm the lawyer on the panel. i'll talk about the regulatory process. it still takes an awful long time. the process -- the international component in it and you have a long time. so i would like to see in the next ten years some improvements in that process, and the way that can happen is really through what has been started fairly recently, is more and more kind of the public/private partnership collaboration approaches to regulation. get the issues on the table as early as possible, get the folks

in the room as early as possible. hash out issues where there's differences, figure out a way to resolve them. so, it's really about what kind of process improvements can we make? what kind of institutional things need to be re-examined? and we're starting to do that. we're creating these new -- i talked to about a couple of groups and organizations. the new one, the center for advanced communications on the research and development side. the testing and evaluation aspect is very, very crucial. so, to make leaps and bounds towards that aspect of the technology would be great. because looking back at the various transitions from 2g to 3g, 3g to 4g, some of it was technologyically driven and some was driven by the fact you

didn't need to come back to the regulator and get permission to go from one generation to the next. you did need to come back to get the spectrum. so, if there's a way to figure -- sharing spectrum, that's what i'd like to see, improving access to that. >> petitioner set me up for one -- peter set me up for one thing. i agree with him. the processes today take a long time, and often are frustrating for all of the parties. i've seen things going on two and three years arguing about whether -- how the limit should be 10db tighter or not. not always but often if we get parties sitting down together and the technical people, they'll work it out. i often use the example of the body networks which is seeking to share spectrum with

aeronautical telemetry systems and each side would basically pin the other about it's technical analysis, and once got them sitting together in a room it took some time, more than a year, but they figured out a way that -- with the combination of operational controls and coordination and technical limits the two could share the same spectrum. and so on friday, we released -- i should say dianne cornell, who headed our process reform group -- we released a report on the process reform at the fcc, including ideas peter just talk about, about trying to find alternative ways to address these issues that come up. so, we invited public comment on that, and i think is was -- don't hold me to it -- the end of march the deadline for comments. this is a collective matter for

the entire communication, i encourage you to take a look at what is in the report, and if you have ideas you think might be alternatives or better than what we have out there, our ears are open. thanks. let me ask one inspired by those remarks, which is about the international side, which we have heard a fair amount today. where do we stand in terms of other countries' thinking? where do you think the u.s. is most effective in driving an international process? so i know that's sort of a general one, a little off topic, but given how much the international theme that come up and we need to coordinate, i wonder if people can give it a try. and maybe we can start with peter and work down the row. >> definitely not my area of expertise.

i'm more an observer on this, and -- but there are definitely cadres of very dedicated folks involved in this, and that's where collaboration does occur to come up with u.s. positions, but also i think -- but in my experience, looking at other countries, and seeing how they've evolved and -- typically you see them following the lead of the u.s. other times maybe they're driving some of the things. like i would say, spectrum sharing, you know, definitely taken off globally, the concept, and various areas -- like europe is really focused on kind of a licensed approach to sharing. licensed shared access or authorized shared access of the

concept. so, if -- back in the old days you looked within the united states, the states, as the laboratories of -- for experimenting. it's now different countries or regions around the world that are experimenting with different ways of providing for spectrum access that we ought to learn from. the uk, for example, experimented for a long time and developed a spectrum fee so that their government users and how they managed that. so we looked at that. the report i mentioned from stppi looks into that experience as well and evaluates that. so i look at the other countries for laboratories and also as collaborators, too, because this is -- like general wheeler said, it's a global spectrum environment, and pretty much you need to be on the same page. but at the same time, what others kind of take the lead and see if it works out, and maybe

follow with that. that's a good approach, too. >> so, at the technical level, there's a lot of work going on internationally. universities and so forth. so go to a conference that peter and i and others go to, calls dispan which has been going on ten years? >> 2005, yes. >> it's a bit surprising how much work is going on on dynamic spectrum access around the world. and the normal process is you first see these things in laboratories in universities, and then assuming they still have merit, the move up through the policy lengths. so i'll focus on a couple of things. tv white space and the database model that we adopted here in

the united states. it's been embraced already by a number of countries around the world that are deploying systems either on trial basis, some places it's operational. in many of these countries that it actually have more white space than the united states, and you're trying to send signals out for broadband at a distance, it's ideal. so it'sen instance an instance where something that was born in the united states is catching hold in other parts of the world. the international process is slow to change. and i think it's underrable. so while at times it can be frustrated, why it's moving so fast. keep in mind this huge investment in the systems that are there today, and we should

be making sure that those systems are protected. the classic model has been the kind of stovepiped allocations. that's the way the international table of allocations is set up. and so when you come to an operator or people who have a -- are stakeholders in a block of spectrum and say we're going to put somebody in who will get out of your way, there's naturally first reaction of, well, i -- that puts my system at risk, and it's not clear to me that it is actually going to work, and then, of course, in the end, how does this -- other than making the community better, how does this benefit me? so, i think it's going to be a long process internationally where, when people start to see benefits that -- to their economies from access to these systems, and that the technology

also works, it will work its way into the international process, and in fact i think there's been a task group looking at it. so it is getting more attention internationally. >> i just want to add from a commercial perspective, we look at this in many cases like watching paint dry. it takes a long time. i certainly appreciate all the work that goes into teeing up the bands. i go back to 2000, when a number of bands were teed up in the wrc, and as such for mobile broadband and subsequent to that i think with the president's talked about the megahertz initiative, going through the process of evaluating each band. it is a lengthy process, and so the fcc has a tough job of trying to balance the federal needs with the commercial

requirements, and so that is certainly difficult. i think on the technical level, in preparation for this upcoming work, there's a number of joint technical working groups that are working to assess a number of bands that are going to be put on the agenda, but the challenges are broad, and i think it's going to take a lot of work on both sides, and peter is right, the u.s. does lead, believe, the world in this regard, and other countries tend to follow our lead on it. so hopefully the process will speed up a little bit more. >> i'll just add the fact that the international standards community and the role they play in this is so critical. carriers by their very nature are looking for the greatest economies of scale they can get, and if you can get bands that are harmonized globally, that makes it easier to build devices

that are affordable. so this is one of the things we have to be -- we -- the participants need to be thinking through, how do we make sure we have harmonized bands and the least expensive devices we can get. >> a pretty robust agenda. let me see if anybody in the audience has a question. go ahead, place. >> thank you. a question for any of the speakers on the panel. has there been any discussion or evaluation of the able to use the funding in the spectrum relo fund related to determining the answer of -- being cleared what are the best sharing opportunities. >> yes. >> thank you, peter.

>> there's been several proposals to expand the use of those funds. why not re-invest to the development of the new and better technology. totally makes sense. right? right now, the suspect from re -- spectrum relocation fund created by the suspect tremendous enhancement act in 2004, and 2012, only covers costs for re-location or sharing. the costs that are covered did expand a little bit to cover planning and those -- some research and development. but the recommendations by the president's council for advancement of science and technology, p -- recommendations, others, suggested probably the csis report from three, too -- i

don't remember -- suggested some kind of spectrum innovation fund, and legislation going that way as well, that the auction proceeds would go into more broader re-investment into that kind of stuff. so the idea has been out there. it's a matter of really getting it obviously with private -- would require legislation everytime you move in money from one purpose to another, you have to get congress to bless that. so if there's other ways to do it, it would be fine, too. it's one of those ideas that has been around. it's matter of implementing it. because there's lots of demands for money, and that goes to the point, one of the -- talked about the process and stuff like that. these processes are such a drag sometimes on resources, and it's finding the resources to get these things done, whether it's to do a test, to go out