1968: american turmoil five sunday at 8:30 sunday morning on c-span's washington journal and on american history to be on c-span3. >> next, look at the latest automotive innovations in the use of wireless technology hosted by new america this is one hour and a half. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. welcome to new america. we will get started but feel free to go out for any additional sandwiches or drinks.

my name is michael and i direct the wireless future project here at new america as part of our open technology institute and of course, we focus on our wireless future and particularly on encouraging more efficient use of the airways and more license spectrum and wi-fi and so on. actually, as we approach a 5g world connecting everything else including cars is becoming increasingly relevant. we are talking cars, 5g and wi-fi and time to get more mileage from the carpet and is very timely. i was just at mobile world congress and there was an incredible focus on 5g as well as on connected cars and how

that will happen and that means also how we use the public airwaves for that purpose as well as for all the other purposes we had. as the invitation indicated the obama administration proposal to mandate vehicle to vehicle communication systems in a particular a type of one in all new vehicles which would go in effect over the next 15-20 years is reportedly on life support at the far more deregulatory trump department of transportation and the notice of people making has been essentially put in a little status in the conventional wisdom right now is that the new administration has no appetite

for 100 billion-dollar mandates for talking cars. i hope that everyone wanting will realize we're not talking simply about the technological advance but horses and talking cars and literally about a new type of auto safety vehicle to vehicle safety and info structure as well as the way to bring lots of new commercial services to cars. part of that debate has also been between which you might call the high-tech sector broadway in the auto industry this focuses on access to the increasingly valuable but still vacant spectrum that was set aside back in 1999 for intelligent transportation

services and a couple years after that the fcc actually put in a channel plan and designated that dedicated short range munication for the technology to do to use in this band and that is what the dot was supposing to mandate. although the safety signaling will use only a portion of this five gigahertz band dot's indecision has now stalled the federal communications proposal to pave the road for superfast wi-fi by allowing unlicensed devices to share the large but still unused band. today's event will touch on both ends of that.

it's the new safety technology what is the trajectory of new auto safety, technology and% particular using medication but how much spectrum and how much of the airways doesn't need and is there room for wi-fi which is really not the adjacent band and is necessary for what is affordable mobile device use that you are also fond of. with that will first have roger who is director of automotive connected mobility of strategy analytics and will do a presentation to give us background on this and where we are because there has been some recent developments with cellular vehicle to everything as a potential substitute for dsr see that is a very important element that essentially changes the debate. roger will give us an introductory presentation and

what the rest of the panel will come up and tara jeffries who is the tech and telecom reporter for bloomberg law will guide us in a discussion about where we go from here and after that discussion it will open to the audience to please be thinking about what questions this all raises in your mind and at the end will have found time for audience q&a and at that point it will tell us who you are in who you are with and make your question or comment and we invite audience participation. with that i will -- we should have bios for everyone to spend a lot of time on long introductions but roger is director of automated connected mobility and strategy analytics and an expert in his field.

roger. [applause] >> thank you very much, michael. i was told to just hit this button. there we go. [laughter] i will let the mystery cursor advance the slides maybe. do i keep trying here? that is not working. okay. all right. so, i'm the director of automated connective analytic

strategy and look at connected home in the mobile and wireless market and we look at the automotive industry and we look at technologies adoption and claimant vehicles and we advise our clients to carmakers wireless carriers and the very broad ecosystems supplying the automated industry including semi conductor content providers et cetera. this is a hot button issue our clients are asking about the src on a daily basis and it's putting all of them in their making significant decisions right now and it's kind of a situation up in the air. michael give a good characterization of the status of the discussion about vehicle to be able to vacation. as i thought about what i would talk about in setting the stage for our conversation today the first question is why are we connecting cars? the average person isn't necessarily insisting on or even looking for a car with a wireless connection and some people today may be looking for a car without the wireless connection. if you are a car company you want to have wireless connection in there today.

you probably have tens of millions of lines of software code in there is not more than a hundred million lines of code and that code is right for theirs and vulnerabilities and you want to be able to manage that data and manage that software and keep it up-to-date as well as being able to detect if there are any cyber security vulnerabilities or intrusions and have the ability to respond and i probably don't have to tell anyone here that we have a huge vehicle recall problem in this country and a growing report of those recalls are for software flaws in the car and if the car companies can correct those flaws remotely with the software update along the lines of what tesla is doing that billions of dollars could be saved by the industry. increasingly the automakers are organizing that this is in their favor and her apartment had a need to connect cars. this has been happening in the context of an automotive industry and wireless industry that don't get along very well.

i'd like to say wireless carriers don't understand car companies and car companies can't stand wireless carriers and they don't and it's not a clue by a kind of experience these two organizations and because there's a lot of cost if you put connection in the car and a liability and issues that are unclear value propositions especially in this age of a smart phone so there was a time when gm could differentiate itself and sell cars with onstar as a value proposition and you could get in a crash call for help and would come, don't worry even if you are on conscience and now most think i'll use my phone so onstar capability never became a requirement across all the other car companies. people and other competing quarterlies did not follow gm only a folded and at the time they license the technology and then they changed their mind and put the license back. interestingly and mother to europe will implement an equal mandate would require all new

vehicles to have it onstar like function built in. that is just a new type two cars and onstar for all cars basically in europe. we are going in different directions. but to give you an idea a large volume of cars are going out of dealer lots with the wireless connection and this is just the subscription so many of them are leaving lots without that device been provisioned and many of them are in or on the road. we have zombie cars that have wireless connections that are not activated and the free period has expired people have not renewed. we really haven't sold this value proposition to the consumer quite yet but it is becoming almost the standard why are we connecting cars to each other. just as a wireless connection in the car a regular cellular connection it isn't an obvious value proposition. why does my car have to talk to the other cars on the road and why is it happening?

i think the analogy to an inter- vehicle litigation would be -- and not based on the start smart phones most people look at this vehicle to vehicle indication conversations and they say i've got ways are comedic the other drivers in is going to the server and coming back in the data is being aggregated and interpreted and held for my navigation. but what were talking about today is collision avoidance so that is a direct vacation with cars to help them avoid running into one another so cars notifying all surrounding vehicles of their position in real time and i think so many times a second. what kind of progress have we made in the early years of the moment as michael mentioned? not a lot. gm a couple years ago started putting modules in their

cadillac cts vehicle which is their single lowest volume vehicle and the volume has continued to go down that they made that decision but it's a way for gm to say look, we want the spectrum so don't take away from us and were putting it in our cars and come to find out i think dion was surprised that no one followed their lead and in this approach. volkswagen has been the nest carmaker to step up and i will say toyota was before everybody in deploying in the large number of cars millions cars in japan and on a different spectrum in with a different value proposition and completely different marketplace. volkswagen has said beginning in 2019 their new cars will get connections and this is only for europe though and it's important to understand the context year which is europe does not have a mandate and the mandate has been fought off and being backed by the industry essentially the automated in the wireless industry and interestingly booked by the biggest market in china and china is not going to

employ [inaudible] they will use [inaudible] to hear about today. note the energizer bunny. they do not go away. no one here will tell you it is dead even though i've been quoted saying that. [laughter] is not going away and not dead yet and so the new in the space is the voice is coming from a move in europe and us dot in the us is technology neutrality so we're not going to put our thumb on the scale anymore and the significance of that is that when we have the smart city challenge in the us for example all of the proposals required the src. if you are trying to get a smart city grant you had to include the src in your proposal and it looks like that will go away. they will stop pushing the src. states said at the state level

that they will continue to push it but not all states and maybe about 18 but it's not a unified front on drs c at the time and so regulators and government has taken a step back and saying it may be that the capacity market is to get out of the way and let the market forces take over and this is technical and i won't get into much details but i do want to highlight a couple of things. attend about dbx which may be your hearing about the first time although i hope not. it's using the same spectrum and offering almost identical, if not superior, capabilities. you are having the same low latency and is also high-bandwidth. in addition it can operate without network assistance and i can't tell you how many senior industry engineer executives with far more advanced degrees that i will ever see in my life telling me that the carriers will never allow direct

medications without access to the network that you will have to can mitigate with the network and there will be too much latency for this to be a safety relevant application and it is simply not true but i don't know why the confusion process but i wanted to emphasize that this audience to make sure were on the same page with direct vehicle to vehicle litigation without the network and finally again they are using the same spectrum and their other issues here and there's [inaudible] this comparison was from [inaudible]. what are we seeing and how does this unfold in the market what does it mean for the average consumer is more cochlea means as a vice because vehicles will be able to mitigate with each other in the early days. the problem is you surmise by now is that if they cadillac has

this and no other car has it the only car it can avoid colliding with is another model year 2018 cadillac. this is a problem and volkswagen will have the same problem and volkswagen so equipped model 2018 or 19 i suppose will only avoid colliding with another volkswagen model year 2019 so the value proposition only works once all cars or someone say a certain percentage of cars are so equipped. there is a day one capability that would be relevant and vehicle to infrastructure so if you have traffic lights that are enabled with they would be able to mitigate with cadillac and that application and the likelihood is that it would be a small number of traffic lights because deploying using existing cellular technology is way more expensive so pure local you will not go towards was about that

would be a day one application. ford has said in 19 they would do cb x which is significant because ford was one of the early hard-core developers of the rc for them to say they are doing cb x is a big deal, very big deal. others very likely are behind them they have come out in particular in the forefront and said we are doing this. i was just at the mobile world congress and talking with samsung and qualcomm and awards party can place the more car companies adopted 5g and 5g doesn't exist yet and how are they doing that the significance of that information is that typically car companies have been four or five years behind every revolution of the wireless networks when we were getting 3g cars getting too deep. they have discovered like gm one went from analog to digital that

analog got turned off other cars got turned off and suddenly they had a class action lawsuit on their hands. it is now working hand in glove with the wireless industry on this implication of this next generation and they want to cars with the latest technology that they want. this device will be in there for 15 years and you don't want to be saving pennies on an old network policy will not be around in 15 years. the evolutionary path and this is the qualcomm start they are saying it will be forward compatible with 5g whereas csr c is only compatible with [inaudible] into clear up and i haven't heard this confusion a lot but there's confusion about interoperability and there's none these technologies. the industry has to make a choice in the automated makers

have to decide one or the other. they want to mitigate with each other but cb x has implemented now will work on a 5g network in the future. you will have capabilities with this technology for edge computing and much more sophisticated vehicle connectivity solutions from traffic and other value propositions that are taking advantage of the network as well as working with her is no network. the key is i want to double down on this message the pc five interface that allows that direct medication between vehicles were between vehicles which is not present and curlin wireless network but will be available within a network that is involved to cb x and eventually 5g and so we have many issues to talk about today and i just put some of them here but this is not a copy of the list so the outlook for the

mandate the two technologies wireless spectrum allocation, impatience, business model, cost, consumer acceptance and these are the issues will be discussing today. that is my table setting contribution. michael. [applause] >> great background. we invite the panel to come up and will take over. >> thank you all for joining the conversation and i will briefly introduce each person and let them give their own introduction of what they're working on and where they are on this topic. we've got michael, director of the wireless future project here at new america's oci and we have gone [inaudible] competitive enterprise institute and senior fellow and we've got mary brown

with cisco, we've got danielle with an tta and she is vice president and associate general counsel and finally we have roger has just generously given us a great background on the subject. michael, i was there with you. >> okay. thanks for doing this and as roger said it is looking increasingly unlikely that there will be a mandate for the src as the specific technology or any mandate for a vehicle to vehicle safety signaling and particulary there's no mandate the fcc should use the opportunity to

make a to take immediate look at the highest and best news of this to fairly large and now increasingly valuable spectrum which weighs empty. it should be fairly obvious that quite a bit has changed since 1999 when it was first allocat allocated. i will mention a few of those. first, there is a revolutionary new auto safety technology to avoid most which is not just radiocommunication technology. as automakers develop automated vehicles there are already incorporating and rapidly improving one of the sophisticated crash avoidance technologies that include radar, automated breaking, ultrasonic sensing and onboard sensors such as drowsiness.

they said the signaling will be proven or effective certainly for 15 or 20 years or longer. even if it's mandated because it takes 15 years for the entire vehicle fleet in the united states to turn over and by then will be living in a very different transportation world. cars will be connected just not to buy dsrc so even if dsrc was mandated for vehicle to vehicle signaling soon all new cars will be connected to the general purpose mobile networks for all kinds of other purposes. that should make safety more cost-effective and it is simply part of the general purpose network rather than being a standalone proprietary dsrc network but it also means the band can be reorganized to capitalize the public interest

since this would be starting afresh. third, whatever technology is used there remains a critical distinction between real-time safety of life application which must be narrowband in uniform and their operable in commercial or informational applications such as getting an advertising flash and add flashed on the windshield when you stop at a red light in mcdonald's or downloading maps or stopping videos other cars. we can use other spectrum for that purpose or share the commercial band with wi-fi. when commissioners o'reilly spoke here at the topic two years ago leave it or not and nothing has really changed since then but the commissioners o'reilly particularly emphasized that the noncritical safety used

of this band should be shared with wi-fi. fourth, cellular is starting from scratch today so they will just begin some validation testing in the spring in southern california so now is the time to decide how to use public airways. there is better to core and mobile carrier band that can be's. at a minimum there's no reason that the safety channels using 5g radios cannot operate at the top of the band and allow wi-fi which is adjacent at the bottom of the band to share the rest. finally the public interest must act in the enormous growing value of wi-fi. wi-fi plans are congested and places in in a 5g world consumers will need much wider channels of shared spectrum that

appear available only in the five and six gigahertz bands. right now the car band is a vacant desert island smack in the middle of what will be the core band needed to make wi-fi more available fast and affordable consumers. it's time for a fresh look. >> thank you, tara. thank you to america for hosting us today. i will i guess you could say two categories here. first of all i will discuss a specific problem in the national highway administration vis-à-vis notice of proposed rulemaking that was published about a week before president trump took office and has since been mothballed as a long-term action as michael and roger discussed.

first, [inaudible] this would have required an estimated nearly 20000 productivity units to be built along the national highway system but as it was noted they do not have funds to build out the network and don't have authority to regulate and manage the network so when they were talking about mandating the specific vehicle technology that would have required a brand-new nationwide network they would have said he will figure this out later and you will see this as a theme that they could figure this out later rather than actually presenting up an actual proposal to the public to comment on. this one would likely have resolved if they had continued forward with the they left a

large, glaring bracketed hole where the discussing obviously we would encrypt the basic safety messages that we transmitted between the cars and also you have to have a way to replenish the certificates over time. it was said that would figure this out sometime between now and the final rule will not give you anything to evaluate so lawyers can't look at this and most of the engineers couldn't look at this to see what may be going wrong with their approach to cyber security. to avoid litigation this would have derailed their proposed rollout and they likely would have needed to issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking and opened up another comment. so commenters could evaluate that cyber security tech

committed from the proposal. another problem that was noted it likely doesn't have the authority to mandate that users accept critical updates or a replenishment of the security certificates. what that would mean is that if a user refuses critical updates the vida v device becomes inoperative and is no longer receiving or broadcasting. now they say they could mitigate that this kind of thing with not including an off switch but also installing a telltale, light or a time that would annoy users into accepting these wireless updates but another problem since they can't mandate the users accept these updates

privacy conscious or even be a prophetic i like to call this the apathy rate is not considered in the but given that we have 10% of cars on the road today that display a check engine telltale so that is mostly people who do not care in the have taken the meaning of that telltale to not be worth very much in terms of their safety or the operation of their vehicle but if you have privacy conscious people may be hostile, actively hostile to this connectivity all they would have to do is refuse updates and then the device on their vehicle becomes inoperative so the problem is easily solved. finally, on these efficiencies and what michael was saying was the trump administration has staked out a deregulatory approach and executive order

13771 which also requires cost neutrality and given that the regulatory impact analysis that was published along with the proposed rule estimated a $5 billion annual cost and a hundred 8 billion-dollar cost by 2016 that would give the trump dot a lot less maneuverability in pursuing articles that they were going to add district can take new cost would have been by far the most costly auto safety regulation in a number of years. i think part of it is practical because if they were to continue pursuing this we would have they would have an issue in pursuing the things that are there priorities as well. it would limit their flexibility and we and i hope to touch on this more but automated vehicle developers in the leading ones such as the formally self

driving google car prevent theye strongly negative of this proposal and i think from the perspective of an automated vehicle when they were looking at this and remember this is only hazard warnings and this will alert the driver of an imminent hazard it will not actively intervene to stop a crash like automatic emergency braking so the best case for self driving car developers be all they have to use the ball at the in this annoying telltale that riders get respond to so if you're in a full self driving vehicle and you were to see this alert well, you might realize that a car is about to but can't do anything about it so you be be terrified going into a crash. the worst-case scenario that and they repeatedly weighed in on this in the comment.

was well, they didn't resolve the cyber security issues what happens if there is some sort of vote [inaudible] between the device and the technology in the automated technology that is directing the core vehicle functions what if we somehow have a malicious attack on that and their point was without any additional information from the federal government all they were doing was increasing the number of attack sectors and there is no point on increasing the attacks service if you're trying to about safety when you were cutting against another far more promising safety technology and finally i would think that a mandate could divert resources that automakers currently spending and they are currently spending on automation technologies which could save far more lives in the best case

scenario and shifting into this and i like to think it's envisioned as the connected vehicle and this sounded great particularly they may have had a case back in 2005 to mandate this but the time is long past and we're going to see the 5g far more promising than the connected vehicle technologies. >> reports before i hear mary's thoughts i would like to mention i love to return to this idea of consumers having to update the system and i imagine government entity forcing people to update their iphones in the country would collapse and no one does those on time. [laughter] i like to return to that and the

check engine light is on and how often we ignore those. i love to return to that. >> thank you for having me today. first systems are in front of me i think it is because everyone involved in this debate is a customer or a partner and we are trying to figure out what is going to happen. this is one of the added issues i have worked on in my 35 year career in public policy. two decades ago the department of transportation had the bright idea that you could take radio technology and you could introduce them into the transportation sector to generate efficiencies and make us more safe and probably render environmental benefits to boot. today the transportation department has done is by any measure somewhat complete but

not complete. with every passing year the views about what should happen to this idea of using radio to make us safer has become increasingly splintered and i now count five mutually exclusive use some of which you have already heard today. the first, dsrc is and should remain the intelligent transportation technology of choice. some auto manufacturers the department of transportation itself, the national highway transportation safety administration appear to agree. more recently the highway departments have added their voice and that said [inaudible] has not mandated the use of vehicle to vehicle technology is not mandated dsrc. if you look at their website remains a significant rulemaking and is a key part of the us department of transportation i it s strategic plan and more

infrastructure women's are having at the state levels funded by tax dollars. new cooperman is being introduced by vendors and just last week the police standards body stood up and study group to refresh and update the standard. it doesn't feel dead to me. second position, cellular vehicles everything should be the designated technology of choice. this technology challenger uses exactly the same spectrum as dsrc but is not interoperable with it as we heard earlier. by definition this is a winner take all proposal. it was created by the global cellular industry in response to china's decision to move to a cellular base system and we are still in the united states in the very early days and it has not been tested anywhere near the level of dsrc and certainly not been tested by government. it may well be a great

technology and it may well be a better technology but that is a point is to be developed along with some explanation of what business model look like because that may have different occasions for both auto manufacturers as well as the state highway departments and most importantly consumers. third position it s is too much of spectrum devoted to it than that amount should be used in favor of repurposing sectors from our wi-fi. it certainly is true that wi-fi needs more spectrum in that spectrum has not been used and is sitting there. some parties are urging not to mandate any radio technology for safety because they say autonomous technology are good enough. my own view on that based on the engineering studies i see is that whatever radio technologies you talk about dsrc or cellular based in both of them see beyond

autonomous technology and would give the car more information to help keep the passengers in that vehicle safe and i think the auto manufacturers would contemplate whatever system that is that is ultimately to use that would set be integrated into the autonomous system and will become another data influence. lastly, others say leave the real solution to the market. what is less clear is help with the market resolve very real network back problems mainly we all have to be on the same or interoperable radio technology to obtain the benefits. splintering is never good for public policy decision-making. ideally want to bring parties together and i see this debate going in the opposite direction and i hope to discuss more about the implications of all of this

as it goes to the discussion and q&a. >> thank you, mary. daniel, let's hear from you. >> in keeping with michael's theme of a change i also want to talk little bit about changes in the marketplace and maybe some things that haven't changed since 1999 or more recently five years ago when the tc opened up the five gigahertz proceeding. i would like to talk about the changes in the spectrum environment but i like to start by highlighting the need for more wi-fi spectrum as mary said has not diminished in the last five years. that need is becoming more acute interesting fast-paced growth and consumer demand. there been a couple of important studies using different methodologies that will include consumers will need over a gigahertz of new online spectrum in the next few years and that is just to support growing command of technologies like wi-fi and you need made me more than that.

from their perspective i've got nine gigahertz and the best near-term option for additional mid- band unlicensed spectrum suitable for wi-fi and why is that? it's immediately of and adjacent to the 3g van which is the most important wi-fi band in the world by opening the standard wi-fi we can look at the port economy scales and providers will be able to bring more broadband to the market. despite this rhetoric it's just around the corner after nearly 20 years as others highlighted [inaudible] they may never see commercial wide spread commercial deployment. there is no other mid- band spent the day that is so underutilized and has [inaudible]. they are delivering a gigabits up advanced homes and businesses without access to think like

[inaudible] [inaudible] there has been a shift from and as others of mentioned this is shifting into interest [inaudible] that means that arguments about costs and current channelization that they need to maintain are now suspect. we heard from a couple of folks that although the suggest that the 59 gigabits abuse for application but as this is a new technology that may not be the case and we've heard that no one has a path forward and maybe that it's appropriate to think about cb acts as the 5g bucket and allocations for delivered doesn't mean less spectrum but the time is right for the fcc to

take a fresh look, step back and what are the spectrum needs for this shifting landscape in automotive communication technologies and what is the right spectrum home for these different options. we have heard some in the community suggest that [inaudible] i also want to talk about changes in the spectrum environment the ftc. in that time the lower adjacent you need three bands as i mentioned it has seen widespread millions upon millions of license bided in the united states has been talked about too much yet here today is that upper adjacent band and right now immediately adjacent to the high-powered fixed links and satellite litigation systems in the fcc has said open to

proceeding a notice of inquiry authorizing the six gigahertz spectrum. michael mentioned it may no longer be a perfect of island auto safety that may be a good engineering choice is to have an automated safety band and it may be time for the fcc to take a step back and a fresh look. they proposes that the sec issue a further notice of proposed rulemaking that would propose to designate all spectrum for unlicensed use to help me that growing demand and comment on what the spectrum needs are for the automated applications feature. [inaudible] >> thank you, daniel. roger, although to you next. >> well, i already sounded off but i did want to comment on some of the statements that were

made here and some of the things i didn't mention. i did want to highlight what michael was saying about the fact that there are technologies with the market with the conversation about dsrc started. cameras in particular more or less did not exist on cars for the safety tool and radar was very early stages and certainly too expensive in most cases. we certainly weren't hearing about lidar where in the industry i can tell you right now we've gone from one light our provider to 50 lidar providers and i don't have to tell you what that means for scalability, cost reduction and the delivery of that technology to enhance driving safety. what we haven't talked a lot about on the panel here is what we are working towards in the industry which is autonomous driving with the safety technology enabling the experience with no driver and 5g

is very likely to play a major role in that. what some of you may have seen in the newspapers today or in recent weeks and months is the need for remote control of the vehicle. we have seen hackers do that but now it may become not only a standard which is being defined for yet another level of autonomy for remote control but her apartment and may become a requirement for the vehicle if something goes wrong you want to have a fallback of some kind to the remote control. the wireless connection 5g provides precisely the bandwidth in the low latency you need to do that although companies are doing it today with lte. believe me i was skeptical as anybody about the scalability of remote control of large number of vehicles but it is not only being contemplated but may well

be a required standard. in fact, finland autonomous driving law provides for the driver that there must be a driver for the driver doesn't have to be in the car so draw your own illusions where this is leading. i'd be the first person to say both the autonomous vehicles that are operating on the road today do not have a wireless connection and they are placed. in the future we want to have all of the technology at her disposal that we possibly can have. belt and suspenders kind of approach to autonomous driving. wireless technology will pay that critical and very likely will be cellular. although i will say that the satellite creating conference here in dc yesterday and certainly satellite launch payroll in the same as well. i think the points were covered very nicely and with very little overlap by the other speakers. back to you. >> roger, thinking that. i do get support to talk to the role of autonomous vehicles today in these policy discussions. i for one wonder if will keep using the phrase behind the

wheel prefer to someone who's been in control of something when we are no longer behind the wheel literally of our cars. [laughter] moving on, it's clear that this debate in some ways is quite old in the sense that some idea of intelligent transportation and spectrum has been in the works for decades. it is also very new with things like self driving cars. i want to switch gears, planet slightly attended and asked my goal should there be a mandate it all for vehicle to vehicle mitigation? >> we haven't focused on that and were not claiming to be safety experts exactly and mark should weigh in on that. i think some of the

considerations mentioned at the beginning are very important which is given the cost and given how long it would take to become effective i think the administration really needs to look at how much of a difference it would make and i think it was mentioned that roger mentioned the trajectory of the driver assist safety technologies. again, the radars and lasers and we know lidar cameras and all that is only improving makes each car safer and makes the whole driving environment incrementally safer for everyone and for each new car. a big problem with the frc is that if we are frank about the notice of rulemaking is that it will take at least -- first of all, even if they adopt it

tomorrow it will be a few years they start doing it and it will take 15 years they said even for it to be effective because you have to have a turnover which takes about 15 years. it seems we are changing the nature of driving so radically over the time. and these things are so interactive with each other as someone mentions. probably it is better to leave it to the market but within obviously within certain bounds. >> roger, he wanted to weigh in. >> from a mandate perspective i thought you were going to say and you didn't quite say it but even if were going to go forward it would probably be eight years before anything took effect. if you look at the backup camera mandate that was eight years and

if you look at very enlightening research that has to be done top of of the research that is done for to determine exactly how it would be implemented et cetera et cetera and there's all sorts of comment periods and a phase and what we saw in the obama administration was a shift to a voluntary relationship with the industry so i would say we should mandate automatic emergency braking at low speed but again if we pursue two mandate approach it would be eight-ten years before we save [inaudible] and they took a voluntary approach to get everyone to commit to we will put this on the cars by a certain date and so there seems to be something fundamentally flawed in the regulatory process. i think i could be mistaken because i'm not a lead commercial vehicle industry expert however i think they have

more authority to implement mandates in that sector much more rapidly and we might be having a different conversation today if the approach had not been to see dr a c in the commercial segment and today we have dsrc technology and if you put in the car we have the added advantage of being able to tech other cars around you and you have a valuable proposition. there is something fundamentally flawed and revelatory process to get to a lifesaving position. >> very. >> yes, i want to point out that the notion that michael raised about the amount of time it will take to roll out radio -based technology into the fleet that is all the cars that we brought is a concern regardless of what radio technology you pick.

the average american is now holding onto their vehicles for more than ten years and it takes time for any new technology to be deployed whether it's semi autonomous, autonomous, radio -based. to me the question is does radio -based capability for safety -- does that -- is the increment of safety you get off that from semi autonomous technologies that are in new cars today or from autonomous technologies is the incremental benefit you will get from that worth the cost. what we saw in the proposed rulemaking from the end of 2016 when they did their cost-benefit analysis they were concluding yes but i will be the first to say technology this past and

obviously we go to final rule you have to do that analysis again to find out regardless of the radio technology you pick is the benefits for the cost. >> 1200 lives would be safe or something [inaudible] >> i think i heard 1400 but that was 16. >> i'm assuming a connection between the rf solution and the vehicle controls because no, that was assuming that -- >> yet, that was a warning. >> yes, but the auto manufacturers say they would integrate that data into their semi autonomous technologies. >> the ones that don't actively propose the mandate. >> no, no, no, regardless of the technology if you assume radio technology it will be well part of that. >> i think the main difference between automated technology and

radio technology is that you can start providing safety benefits immediately once that automated technology is deployed. it doesn't matter what other cars are equipped with and in the case of the mandate from mid- thought they were looking at a cost-benefit break even point around a decade after the phase and began so what decade after the mandate started. many argue that was optimistic but the point is some of the lower levels of automation technology take automatic braking which is incredibly promising right now we're starting to see this be deployed in the vehicle fleet today. we can say just as many lives as the probably overly optimistic regulatory impact analysis says we could in just a couple of years as opposed to waiting decades to reap those benefits under the vision. i don't disagree that in the future we are going to see

automated connectivity and cooperative automated vehicles but that isn't what [inaudible] is talking about right now and if you look at the discussion and everything in that rulemaking proceeding that is still open it is very little nothing on automated vehicles and it's all focused on hazard warnings. finally, just to point out i think there has been even though we are still having this rulemaking sitting out there that have been redesignated as a long-term action and he didn't expect to work on this for at least 12 months but i think we've seen other things maybe not as clear as a regulatory shift but we saw the 2018-strategic report that will got all references to compared to what is in 1418 strategic plan. also we have seen guidance

pulled back it federal highways and so i think i don't think the administration has finished its work on this topic but i think there are in addition to the redesignation of the rulemaking proceeding status i think of there are other indications from the department publicly that they are moving in a different direction than the previous administration. >> anyone else want to comment on what mark just said? >> the regulatory overhang perspective for this proposed mandate filtered out there even though it's related to the back burner and that's problematic for everyone involved. i think it's problematic for the automotive sector and where it's headed with the vehicle connectivity and it's problematic from a political perspective in trying to get the fcc to forward and finally to

get to the place where regardless of what the decision is we get more efficient use of that gigahertz band. >> i'm interested in the perspective here and what we are fundamentally looking at which i alluded to in my opening comments which is that for the first time we are talking about using cellular for an active safety function in a vehicle which is quite radical. typically the cellular interaction industry by the automakers has been for things like containment and automatic crash notification, sure, maybe vehicle .-dot diagnostic with safety that's a whole different group of guys that take a different view of the wireless industry generally. how the rest of the panels think about that fundamental shift. >> that is a great question, roger. mary, any thoughts? >> as i said in my opening i

think we are lacking a couple of things. obviously we are lacking a mitza administrator can articulate which way the wind is blowing inside the agency. we don't have one. we don't have anyone sitting in the decision seed deciding and acting person who is pursuing the agenda she has been given. on this question i think there is been a complete lack of clarity on the business model of a cellular system and who would run it and do the carriers want to accept the liability of being the providers of a vehicle to vehicle crash avoidance system and what they prefer the auto manufacturers to take that liability and what would the business relationship be and from the perspective of how is the band used into what and is

the greater repent of the system will be used for data and what are the business relationships there and i thank you don't have clarity and i think i'd be curious to know if anyone has seen this but i haven't seen clarity yet coming out of the carriers. they are interested in exploring the technology to see what the technology can do which is good but i haven't seen clarity about how the business actually works. the one thing i will say is dsr there is a very clear business model and it involves the consumer pain wants to buy the car. once you buy the car with the radio in it you don't pay anything anymore. i think there's a consumer angle the needs to be clarified. >> mary, you make a great point about liability. that's a running theme in 5g is that once the network has every part of the consumer's life on it who is liable when that

device does not work for when something bad happens. i know michael wanted to make a point. one thing i mentioned in my opening was that the fcc commissioners who had been is speaking out on this issue over the past couple of years they have been emphasizing that there is this distinction between the to be as real-time safety and what you need for safety needs to be needs to have low latency and interoperable and available to everyone or it will not work. remember this is a technology that has come to play dependent on the network and on every car having this and it all being -- every car been able to talk the same linkage. there's a big distinction that and all the other connected car applications that you might do

whether perhaps using alternative radios on the same ship and what i've been hearing recently from mobile carriers is an acknowledgment of that distinction an important distinction they are saying that for the government to tell us they will have to say that there is that every car for safety has to have it's not just a mandate but they'll still have to say if you're going to have a safety signaling that it must all be the same interface and it has to be interruptible and they are saying that has to be a peer to peer communication and will not be were not talking about safety but the way it works on your smart phone and were not talking to the cloud or back to each of the competing carriers different

networks but this has to be for safety and basic safety message has to be peer to peer and directly the cars and they are saying that can be the same basically use the same sort of 5g radio but probably it is something the automakers just put in and it operates and no one knows who is in charge of it yet whereas all the other things that you would do with cellular acts that competes on and that will go back through their own works for the most part. it's innocence two different things. >> michael, i wanted to follow up on safety how much spectrum is needed? >> well, needed and also required so what mitza, department of transportation has

in their notice of rulemaking which is now on the shelf and the suspension from the beginning the requirement that all vehicle to vehicle signaling must be honored dedicated single channel of 10 megahertz so the band is 75 megahertz and they require that all their vehicles at real-time safety signaling be on 10 megahertz and they also have this motion to set aside a second channel for first responders because it could be at a much higher power level and in europe what the european union decided years ago they had a proceeding they said we think that safety requires 20 megahertz but we are going to have a third channel so up to 3y because it might be useful to have, for example, cars getting the stoplights and things like that and even though that is not always time critical it could be on this third channel.

europe is still going about up to 30 megahertz which is why one of the proposals when it looked like the dsr c would be mandated one of the leading proposals had a proposal but qualcomm had a separate proposal and to segment the bands is a let's give safety its own inclusive 30 megahertz at the top of the band so that wi-fi can share the rest of the commercial applications can share in dsrc and wife. what the emergence of cellular rows in this wildcard in this new aspect of will, can you still do it the same way and should be stilled with the same way and on the one hand since they are starting from scratch it would be easy for them to use the top of the van for safety but on the other hand it's less clear how well they can coexist

with wi-fi or whether that makes sense because each of the mobile carriers will have their own 5g networks in their own separate spectrum. >> how much control and i'm not sure how much exactly control he would have over the entire 75 megahertz. and how the pie is divided up. >> it's important to remember that vehicle to vehicle mandate we're looking at 110 make a channel for a safety signaling and i also want to highlight there is sometimes a misperception that this is dot spectrum and in fact this is commercial spectrum governed by the federal communications commission. this has a very important role to play in this debate about safety technology and is not the expert agency when it comes to

spectrum decisions and those are things that congress has committed to the f the to decide. that is why it's time for the fcc to step up and step forward and given the changes in the marketplace and start thinking about exactly what the spectrum needs are in this environment and to take a fresh and holistic look. >> mary, go ahead. >> to apply technology to the statement here the dsr c technology was designed with vehicle to vehicle challenge, 1t upon the existence of a vehicles infrastructure channel so they can obtain their security certificates that we heard about earlier and there is also a control channel at the top of the band in a channel that state highway department would use for their own purposes but you can'l you can't isolate 10 megahertz. they need something else so they can mitigate that radio.

similarly when the [inaudible] asked him long they say it took that's a model but in cellular technology and they also need some way to communicate with the radio that is on board the vehicle weather that absolutely needs to be in the band or could be that communication link be in another band is a question and valid question but that is how we are designed. it was essentially designed as a cellular version of dsrc. >> interestingly roger had a slight uptick in from qualcomm earlier in the discussion during his presentation that highlighted the various [inaudible] there seems like a direct automotive piece to start to get about and they already contemplate them over the

license spectrum in part to do the network occasions. again, given that unique nature and the fact that things are still developing i think now is the right time to be thinking about the spectrum needs. >> most of the advocates will say that it's using the same spectrum and can use the same protocols and deliver the same value proposition is fundamentally so that seems to be the intent. >> we had a white paper from 5g america's police this week that says exactly that so that cellular vendors in cellular operators saying it's the same spectrum. >> where does wi-fi fit into this whole equation? we have mentioned wi-fi several of you have and i want to focus in on this for a second and talk about where it fits in to this spectrum policy discussion.

>> i think i very much said my piece on this but we will reiterate. we still see a great demand growing demand for wi-fi technologies and we are seeing increased system demands and congestion on the networks during peak hour scenarios in several studies are focusing on need for unlicensed spectrum and have a great new wi-fi standard which is now in development for the next one in both those rely on wide 160 megahertz channels. right now in the us we have one of those to support everybody. i should say it's not restricted by the needle frequency selection rules so under most favorable wi-fi rules you have 1160 megahertz channel but to get the country its first continuous 160 megahertz channel [inaudible] is a place to that.

it's the only place that has been keyed up yesterday. i think this man is particularly important for wi-fi use and to meet the growing demand and enable those wi-fi speeds that carriers are delivering that wire broadband are delivering at home. >> i would add that if wi-fi is going to keep pace in a 5g world then it will need wider channels more spectrum. we often and one misnomer we often talk about 5g as a mobile carrier technology and network but it will be even more diverse and decentralized than the current 4g wireless world so currently we currently have 4g

but all of you on your smart phones are actually sending about 80% roughly -- that is what some of the carriers have said, 80% of your modal device traffic is not touching the carrier spectrum for network at all. it's going through a short distance over spectrum via wi-fi and that is what is keeping yous they take too much but believe me you would have far less data if everything you were using actually went to the carrier networks but because it is going to be a wi-fi into the wire lines within a few hundred feet about 80% of the traffic then that makes your mobile broadband more available and considerably faster and a lot more affordable. when 5g comes along the same process needs to happen in the

mobile carriers are using new ways and getting more spectrum and wider channels for faster networks and we will all enjoy that except that that will be too expensive unless wi-fi can keep pace with that in right now the only place for wi-fi channels is in the five gigahertz band which is immediately below and adjacent to its carbon and that we are talking about but unfortunately the sec although it's proposed to make as much as 750 megahertz available for wi-fi back in 2013 it found among other problems that the military said we can't share with certain kinds of radar in the middle of the band and now we are running into this issue of this band we're talking about 5.9 gigahertz.

that is really the only place we know of right now in the upper five gigahertz band and possibly in the six gigahertz band of where you can get these white channels so that the entire 5g system will be robust both the license died in the unlicensed side of it. >> i concur with the part of what michael said but i will ablate further. 5g is the first time that the cellular industry is going to have a radio access network which is the edge radio that is agnostic technology in one of those technologies will be wi-fi so anyone who thanks wi-fi is not part of 5g as a technical matter is misinformed. why fight will be part of the 5g system and desperately needs more spectrum for all the demands michael raised. i personally and many of us in the wi-fi industry have become

it is painful to watch the 59 proceedings in the 59 activities not advance as quickly as we would like because that spectrum is sitting there largely unused. cisco had a proposal years ago when dsrc was the only horse in the race to try to share with the src now were not even sure dsrc will eventually end up prevailing although it will certainly still as i said sitting in the incumbent chair but it is painful to watch and i think at least at cisco we are spending far more of our time and energy and my share on opening up spectrum in six gigahertz because we don't see a way to move the 59 along toward any kind of resolution whether it be d src or cellular be to ask and there doesn't seem to be

any way to move that forward. >> i hope there are more optimistic and were still hopeful forward and it is painful to see it sitting there so underutilized and i think from the perspective six gigahertz is interesting and we had members in satellite links with a discussion code there may be a discussion for another panel but certainly we are hopeful that unlike [inaudible] i think they don't why were not why are we saying [inaudible] one reason is that system is not advance yet and when they kicked us often and a white last summer but we've got [inaudible] [inaudible] hopefully optimistic

about the gigahertz little on. >> roger. >> this is why it's an awkward conversation to be taking place within six. i am frankly getting an education on the wi-fi side of this issue. what we're left with is not a rational discussion usually becomes emotional, political, religious and then it comes to we have spent $700 million on this technology and we've come this far which takes it completely beyond a business model discussion of trying to get back to the real technical issues and implications that touch everybody not just car drivers. i told the untold story of this debate and this is what the wi-fi is about.

>> shed some light on some untold story. any final thoughts from anyone for -- [inaudible conversations] [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> television is microphone. >> my point was simply wouldn't it be helpful first to establish if we ought to be moving toward the objectives of d src whether it be with d src and then discuss bandwidth second. >> i think the main problem we have right now is that what danielle referred to earlier is that we have this regulatory overhang and at mitza that not only is presenting this regulatory uncertainty of the automotive industry over what communicating will be used but also it is having negative impacts over at the fcc and on the wireless industry in the equipment manufacturers. until dot gets its act together and i think it is moving in a

good direction at least from my perspective but until it chooses a path and does so clearly all of this other stuff is still going to be left unresolved. >> i think the logical order of resolution is the one you suggested which we ought to figure out what we need to do about space first and figure out the spectrum consequences after. it is the early days in there was a recent announcement by ford and qualcomm and other players that they would set up a test bed in california and i certainly hope they share the data off that people can begin to see is this technology living up to the marketing hype that we have been hearing about for six months or a year and that would be helpful. i think it would be really important for folks to start telling us what they think the business model looks likes so that could be compared but we

don't have that information today we don't have those data points or clarity around this issue. i think that is the right logical intellectual pursuit. >> [inaudible] >> i hear that concern in this is a challenge that the federal medications commission basis often in this averment because they are in a position as needing to designate bandwidth and eloquent bandwidth many years in some cases before technology takes off. it shouldn't take 20 years but certainly, if you know, in order for technology to take off it needs to have spectrum security in place so needs to make some of these decisions quickly for some of the technology. >> i should add that this is where it got stalled at the fcc they have been waiting for the

department of transportation to make at least a fundamental decision about what safety is needed and -- it's not even so much a choice between d src and cellular be to ask as the air interface technology because they probably would use about the same spectrum for the same amount of spectrum for the purpose of safety but they need to decide is there going to be a mandate and what are they mandating. already in europe as i mentioned earlier they decided that 30 megahertz is about as much as would ultimately be needed for the safety side of it and if they could at least make a decision like that then i think

that would allow the fcc to have confidence in allowing the sharing of the other spectrum for non- real-time safety application. >> there are certainly a lot of open questions and certainly anymore from the audience was to mark thank you, oh, go ahead. >> hello. my name is jack and i'm affiliated on the safety angle what to the insurance companies think of all this? do they see this is something that will be a big deal for them or they do not see it as a big deal at all? >> insurance companies are still trying to find out what a lane departure warning or blind spot light are accomplishing. i think they may have come to the conclusion that that is the

case. the insurance company moves slowly and they focus on history so they don't forecast the efficacy of different safety technologies. as far as tesla was concerned for example they weren't paying a fortune because they were taking risk because the underwriting was based on historical data so insurance agencies will be very careful and slow to react.