now a conversation about the auto industry's use of wireless technology to improve auto safety. we will give you a department vehicle to vehicle technology and the conversation using the public airwaves for vehicle to vehicle communication. >> good afternoon everyone. welcome to new america. we will get started but feel free to go out for any additional sandwiches or drinks. my name is michael calabrese and i direct the wireless enterprise at new america which is part of our open technology institute and of course we focus on our wireless and particularly

encouraging more efficient use of the airways such as wi-fi and so on. actually as we approach a 5g world connecting everything else including cars is becoming increasingly relevant. this event we are talking cars, 5g and wi-fi trying to get more mileage from a car is very timely. it was just a mobile world congress and there was an incredible focus on 5g as well as on connected cars and how that will happen and how we would use the public airwaves for that purpose as well as for all the other businesses we have. as the invitation indicated the

obama administration's proposal to mandate vehicle to vehicle communication systems in particular and all new vehicles which would go into effect over the next 15 to 20 years is reportedly on life support and the department of transportation. the notice of rulemaking has been essentially put in a limbo status. the conventional wisdom right now is the new administration has no appetite for a 100 billion-dollar mandate for cars and i hope everyone watching will realize we are not talking simply about the technological advances.

we are literally talking about a new type of safety, vehicle to vehicle safety and infrastructure as well as a way to bring lots of new commercial services to cars. part of that debate has also been between, what you might call the high-tech sector broadly and the auto industry that focuses on access to increasing valuable spectrum that was set aside after 1999 for intelligent transportation services. a couple of years after that it was suggested we actually put in a channel plan and designate that dedicated shirt range communication and technology to use in this band and that is

what they were proposing to mandate. the src will use only a portion of this five gigahertz band. the decision is now stalled at the federal communications proposal to pave the road for superfast wi-fi by allowing unlicensed devices to share the routers and used by test ban. today's event will touch on both ends of that and the new safety technology and what is the trajectory of new auto safety to elegy using communication but then how much of the airways have room for wi-fi which is filling up and is necessary for ubiquitous support of mobile

devices we are also fond of. with that we are going to first have roger lanctot who is the director of automotive connected mobility at strategy analytics. he's going to do a leadoff presentation and a background on where we are with the system. recent developments with cellular apps as a potential substitute. it's a very important development that potentially changes the debate. rogers going to give us an introductory presentation and then the rest of the panel will come up and tara jeffries newest attack and telecom reporter will guide us in a discussion about where we go from here.

and then we will open up to the audience so please be thinking about what questions come up in your mind and at the end we will have time for the audience. certainly at that point you can tell us who you are and who you are with and you can make your question or comment. with that, and we have bios for everyone so we aren't going to spend a lot of time on introductions but roger is the director of connected mobility and strategy and is an expert in the field. roger. [applause] >> thank you very much.

>> should i keep trying here? that's not working. i am the director of otto did-- automotive and advocate technology adoption for vehicles and advise our clients on wireless carriers and the very broad automotive industry including content providers. it's a hot button issue our

clients are asking about on a daily basis. it is touching all of them and they are making very significant decisions right now. it's kind of a situation that is up in the air. michael gave a good characterization about vehicle to vehicle to medication. i thought about what i would talk about our conversation today the first question why are we connecting cars? i think the average person isn't necessarily insisting on her then looking for a car with wireless connection. if you are a car company you want to have wireless connection you probably have tens of millions. that code is rife with errors and vulnerabilities and you want to be able to manage that data keep the software up to date as well as being able to detect if

there are cybersecurity vulnerabilities or intrusions and have the ability to respond. we have a huge vehicle recall problem in this country and the growing proportion of those recalls are for software and cars. if the car companies can correct those flaws remotely with a software update but tesla's doing than billions of dollars can be saved. recently the automakers are recognizing that this is a requirement. they need to connect cars. this is happening in the context of the automotive industry and a wireless industry that really don't get along very well. i like to say wireless companies can't stand car companies and car companies can't stand wireless companies. because there is a lot of cost and putting a connection in the car a lot of liability and a lot of issues that are unclear value

propositions for the consumer especially in the face of a smart on. there was a time when gm could differentiate itself with onstar is a value proposition. you get in a crash will call for help, don't worry, even if you are unconscious. now people just think i'm going to use my phone so that onstar capability never became a requirement across all the car companies. people did not follow. at the time they licensed the technology and then they change their minds. interestingly in a month or two europe will implement a mandate which will require all new vehicle to have an onstar like function built-in. on stars for all cars basically so we are going in that direction. to give you an idea of large volume of cars are going out to

the dealer lots with the wireless connections. many of them are leaving the lots and many of them are adopting cars that have wireless connections that are not activated and people have not renewed. we really haven't brought this to the consumer yet but it's almost becoming standard. why are we connecting cars to each other x. it isn't an obvious value proposition. why does my car have to talk to the other cars along the road? why is that happening? i think the analogy to an inter-vehicle communication based on the smartphone. most people i think would look at that vehicle to vehicle communication and in conversations they will say i can our economy in a cave with the other driver. it's going to the server and

then coming back and that it's being aggregated and interpreted to help with my navigation but talking about collision avoidance. that is a direct medication with cars to help them avoid running into another of-- and to one another. so cars notifying all surrounding evils of their position in real time. so what kind of progress have we made in 20 years of development? well, not a whole lot. gm a couple of years ago started putting modules and their cadillac villa goals which is probably the single lowest volume vehicle. it was a way for gm to say look we want the spectrum so don't take it away from us. we are actually putting it in our cars. come to find out nobody followed their lead in this approach.

volkswagen meanwhile has stepped up. toyota before everybody employed a large number of cars and in japan but on a different spectrum and with the different value proposition in a different marketplace. volkswagen has said in the beginning of 2019 their new cars will have these connections. it's important to understand the context here which is it does not have a mandate and the mandate has been fought off by the industry by both the automotive industry in the wireless industry. interestingly both market in china. they are going to use the cbx which you will hear a lot about today. no one here is going to tell you that i've been quoted as saying that it's not going away.

not the src. the news in this space is the voice is coming from europe and the d.o.t. and the u.s. is technology neutrality. we are not going to put ourselves on the scale in a morbid the significance of that is when we have the smart talents in the u.s. for example all of the proposals required the danielle had to include dsrc in your proposal. doesn't look like that's going to go away. some states state-level d.o.t.'s have said they were going to contain to push it. it's not a unified dsrc so the regulators and government are taking a step back and saying maybe it's a quicker path and we should get out of the way and

let the market versus takeover. this is a little technical and i'm not getting into too many of the details but i want to highlight a couple of things about spacex which many of you may be hearing about for the first time. it's the same spec german offers almost superior capability. you have the same and it's also high bandwidth. in addition you can operate without network and i can't tell you how many senior industry engineer executives with far more advanced degrees and i will ever see in my life are telling me the carriers would never allow direct communication without access to the network you're going to have that communicate with the network and there'll be too much latency for this to be a relevant application. i don't know why the confusion persists but i want to emphasize

to this audience to make sure we are all on the same page the cable tech cable communication without the network. finally again they are using the same system. there's a little bit of qualcomm snark at the bottom. so what are we seeing and how does this unfold the market and what is to the average consumer? locally it means we are going to save lives because vehicles will be able to kavinoky with each other in the early days. the problem is you probably surmised by now is at the cadillac cts has this technology nor the car has that the only card the cts can talk to is another cat likes cts. cadillac cts. they will only be able to avoid

colliding with another. he really only works when all cars or some would say the certain percentage of cars are equipped. there is a day one capability that would be relevant though and that is vehicle to infrastructures that have traffic lights they would be able to communicate but that application would have to be developed and the likelihood is that what he has small number of traffic lights because c-v2x is way more expensive. you are not going to go at the more expensive route. ford in 2019 will do c-v2x which is significant because ford is one of the early heart for developers so for them to say

they are doing c-v2x is a big deal, very big deal and others very likely are behind them that they have said we are doing this. i would just add talking with samsung and qualcomm the awards the party taking place for car companies adopting 5g. 5g doesn't even exist yet. how do are they doing that? in these significant as-- the significance of that is when we were getting 3g cars we were getting 4g cars until they discovered like gm when we went from analog to digital and analog got turned off all the cars got turned off and suddenly that last action lawsuit on their hands. the automotive industry works hand in glove with the wireless industry on the next generation and they want to have cars with

the latest technology on day one especially because that device will be there and you don't want to be saving pennies on the card is not going to be around. the evolutionary path though, they are saying it will be forward compatible with 5g whereas c-v2x is only compatible with crc. there is a little bit of confusion about the operability of the new technology. you have to make a choice. the automakers have to decide. they won't communicate with each other but c-v2x will work on a 5g network. you will have the capability for edge computing and the vehicle

connectivity around value propositions as well as working where there is no network. so the key is, i just wanted to double down on this message the pc five interface that allows that direct communication between vehicles and after structure will be available and evolved to c-v2x and eventually 5g. so we have many issues to talk about today and i just put some of them here but this is not a comprehensive list prep put a mandate on the functional equivalent on the business model , cost consumer acceptance. [applause]

>> we will invite the panel to come up and tara will take over. >> thank you all. i'm just going to briefly introduce each person and let them give their own introduction of what they are working on and where they are on this topic. we have michael calabrese director of the wireless project we have got marc scribner with the enterprise institute senior fellow and we have the senior director of governmental affairs and danielle pineres. she is vice president and associate general counsel with them and finally we have roger

who has given us a great background on the subject. michael i will start with you. >> thank you tara for doing this and as roger said it's looking increasingly unlikely that there will be a mandate for dsrc as any mandate for vehicle to vehicle signaling. particularly if there is no mandate. the fcc could use the opportunity to take an immediate fresh look at the highest use of this large and increasingly valuable spectrum. this is fairly obvious, quite a bit has changed since 1999 when

it was first allocated and i will mention a few of those first. there is a revolutionary new model safety to knowledge he to avoid the most serious accidents it's not radio technology communication part is automate or is developed vehicles they are already incorporating rapidly improving sophisticated crash avoidance technology with improved radar, lidar, automatic braking and onboard senses such as a drowsiness detector. this signaling will be proven or affect it for 15 to 20 years or longer even if it's mandated to visit takes at least 15 years for the entire vehicle fleet and the united states to turn over and by then we will be living in a very different transportation

world. second, cars will be connected, just not by dsrc so even if it was mandated for vehicle to vehicle soon on the cars will be connected to general-purpose mobile networks for all kinds of other purposes. that should make vehicle safety more cost-effective and part of the general-purpose network rather than the proprietary c-v2x network that also means that van can be reorganized and starting afresh. third, whichever technology is used there remains a critical distinction between real-time safety of life applications which are narrow bands and

commercial or informational apps such as getting an advertising-- and an ad flashed a new window when you stop at a red light in front of mcdonald's or download maps or swapping videos with other cars. we can use another spectrum for that purpose or share with wi-fi. when commissioners o'reilly and rosenworcel spoke two years ago, and nothing is changed since then particular o'reilly emphasized the noncritical safety of the band shared with wi-fi. fourth, c-v2x starting from scratch today so they will begin validation testing this spring

in california. now is the time to decide how we will use the public airwaves. there is better propagation closer to core mobile carrier bands. at a minimum there is no reason these safety channels cannot operate and allow wi-fi at jason at the bottom of the band. finally the public interest must factor into wi-fi. wi-fi bands are very busy places than in the 5g world consumers will have much wider channels of shared spectrum than in the five and six gigahertz. right now the car band is a vacant desert island. >> in the middle of what will be

the core band to make wi-fi more available for consumers so it really is time for a fresh look. >> thanks tara and michael and thank you for hosting us today. i am going to cover two categories here. first i'm going to discuss some specific albums in the national highway safety administration vis-à-vis the proposed rulemaking that was published about a week before president trump took office and has since mothballed a long-term action. first the two radio exclusive approach would have required an estimated nearly 20,000 roadside equipment units to be built along the national highway system but as nhtsa quickly

noted they don't have the funds. they don't have the authority to regulate a management network so what they were talking about mandating specific vehicle technology that would have required a brand-new nationwide network that basically said we will figure this out later. this is the same that-- theme that nhtsa could give to the public to comment on. it is like they it would result in litigation if nhtsa tried to continue forward but they left a large glaring black hole where the regulatory-- [inaudible]

so the basic safety messages are transmitted between the cars and a way to replenish the security over time. nhtsa said we will figure this out sometime between now and the final tool but we won't have anything to evaluate. lawyers could look at this and engineers could look at this or what was going wrong with their approach towards cybersecurity. to avoid litigation and their proposed rollout they likely would have needed have supplemental proposed rulemaking and open up another comet period to a die weight that cybersecurity in the proposal.

.. >> to mitigate this thing not including an off switch but also in some on installing a light or chime that would annoy users into accepting these wireless updates. another problem since they cannot mandate users accept the updates the privacy conscious or that pathetic the apathy rate is not considered. given that we have 10% of cars on the road today that will display a check engine light. that's mostly people who don't

care and they've taken that meaning to not be worth much in terms of their safety or operation of vehicle. but if you privacy conscious people who might be actively hostile to this force connectivity, all they would have to do is refuse updates and then the device becomes inoperative. finally on what michael was saying, the trump administration has staked out a deregulatory approach. the order also requires cost neutrality. given the regular impact analysis published along with this rule estimated

5 billion-dollar annual cost and hundred and 8 billion cost by 2060, that we give the trump tot less maneuverability and pursuing other goals if they're going to add this. it would've been by far the most costly auto safety regulation in years. part of it's practical. if they were to continue pursuing it they would have an issue and pursuing the things that are their priority as well. quickly i want to touch on this more automated vehicle developers and leading one's all weight in our strongly negative of this proposal. from the perspective of an automated vehicle, when they were looking at this this is

only hazard warnings, it's going to alert the driver of an eminent hazard, not actively intervene to stop a crash so the best case scenario would be well they have to install this useful device that may display some annoying telltale that writers cannot respond to. so if you're in of self driving vehicle and received the alert you might realize a car is about to hit you but you can't do anything about it. see you would be terrified going into the crash. the worst-case scenario was that if they didn't resolve the cyber security issues what happens if

there's a link between the device sent the technology that's directing the core vehicle function. what if we have a malicious attack on that. the point is without additional information from the federal government there were just increasing the number of attack factors. there's no point in increasing the attack surface if you're trying to promote safety when you're going against other safety technology. finally, the mandate could defer resources that automakers are currently spending on automation technology and even the best case scenario with hazard warning. i like to think of it envisioned by the many tale of the connective vehicle technology. it sounded great they may have

had a case in 2005 to mandate this. the time is past that were going to see more promising connective vehicle technology. >> before i hear mary's talk i want to mention the to return to the idea of consumers having to update the system. i imagine some government entity forcing people to update their iphone. the country would collapse. nobody deciles on time. the check engine light of cars, how often do we'll ignore those. probably too often. >> thank you for having me today. first lame in front of you and i think everyone involved in the

debate is a customer or partner. were trying to figure out what's going to happen. this is one of the oddest issues i have worked on in my 35 year career in public policy. two decades ago that department of transportation had the idea that you could take radio technology and introduce into the transportation sector to generate efficiencies, make us more safe and render some environmental benefits. today what they have 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 been increasingly splintered. i now count five chilly exclusive use.

the first, the vs rc is and should remain the transportation technology of choice. some auto manufacturers, the national transportation safety administration tend to agree. recently the highway departments have added their voice. yet, if you look on the website it remains a significant role making. it is a key part of the u.s. department of transportation it a strategic plan and more infrastructure deployments are happening. new equipment is being introduced by vendors and just last night they set up in a study group to refresh and update the standards.

it doesn't feel dead to me. the second position. cellular vehicle this waste of the party technology challenger uses the same spectrum but is not interoperable with it. by definition this is a winner take all proposal. it was by the global industry to move to a cellular base system to do this. were still in the very early days it has not been tested near the level a not been tested by government. it may well be a great technology but that's a proof point that needs to be developed along with some exclamation of what the business model would look like.

that might have different implications for auto manufacturers, state highway departments and consumers. third position i tss too much spectrum. it is certainly true that wi-fi needs were spectrum. that has not been used in this sitting there today. some parties urging them not to do any radio technology for safety because they say autonomous ones are good enough. based on engineering studies whatever radio technology you talk about both see beyond autonomous technologies will give the car more information to help keep passengers safe.

i think they would look at whatever it is. that information would be integrated into the autonomous system. have become another data input. others argue to leave the radio solution to the market. what's less clear is how it would resolve the network effect problem. we all have to be on the same or interoperable technology. splintering is never good for public policy decision-making. you want to bring parties together. i see this debate going in the opposite direction and i hope we can discuss more about the implications of this as we move to q&a. >> in keeping with michael's theme of change, i want to talk about some changes in the marketplace things that haven't

changed five years ago when the fcc opened these are changes in the automotive place all talked about changes in the spectral buyer. the need for worst wi-fi spectrum has not diminished. it's becoming more acute and we also need additional spectrum to enable the next. some studies using different methodologies consumers will need over a gigahertz that's just to support growing demand for technologies. from the perspective by .9 gigahertz remains the best near-term option for mid band suitable for wi-fi.

it's adjacent to the three bands which is the most important in the world. you think manufacturers would experience important economies of scale and providers bringing more broadband to the market more quickly. the deployment is round the corner after nearly 20 years. they remain in pilot phase them a number see commercial deployment. there's another spectrum today that so underutilized. today there delivering gigabit to homes and businesses. without access to 5.9 it could become a bottleneck. that's how many of us can experience the internet. while we think 5.9 is critical there has been a lot of change in the last three years.

there's a shift from the src and others have mentioned this is really shifting industry interest away. 's arguments about some cost might need to maintain and are suspect. this is a new technology that may not be the case. we've also heard that it has a path forward to 5g. might be appropriate to think about it in the 5g bucket. it doesn't mean less spectrum the time is right to take a fresh look, step back and think about what the spectrum needs are the shifting landscape in automotive communication technology. what's the right spectrum home for different options. we've heard some talk about a

better choice. i will talk about changes in the spectrum environment since the fcc first conceived of this is the technology band 20 years ago. the three band that's widely used has not been talked about too much is that upper adjacent ban six gigahertz. immediately adjacent there are satellite communication systems that have said notice an inquiry to look at authorizing others. may no longer be a perfect auto safety it may be time for the

fcc to take a step back and a fresh look see what it they propose no propose to designate the full spectrum from licensees to help meet that growing demand. and i'll take comments on what the needs are since 1999 and in the last five years and to examine if there's more suitable spectrum. >> thank you. >> i want to comment on some of the statements made in some things i didn't mention. what michael is saying about a lot of technologies have entered into the market since this started.

cameras in particular did not exist on cars as a safety tool. radar was in the early stages and certainly too expensive in most cases. we've gone from one provider to 50 providers. and i don't have to tell you what that means for scalability and cost-reduction to enhance driving safety without any wireless connection on the car. we haven't talked about on the panel is working toward the industry which is a thomas driving with no driver 5g is likely to pay play a major role in that. but some of you have may be seen as the need for remote control of the vehicle and we seem hackers to that.

now could maybe be a standard being defined by another level of autonomy. better requirement. that vehicles of something goes wrong you want have a fallback of some kind. the wireless connection, 5g provides the bandwidth you would need to do it. companies are doing it today with lte. skeptical has a scalability of remote control of large numbers of vehicles. if your e-mail well be a required standard. finland's autonomous driving law provides for driver the driver doesn't have to be a car. so draw your own conclusions where this is leading. i'd be the first to save most of the autonomous vehicles on the road to not have a wireless connection and are perfectly safe. in the future, you will want to

have all the technology at our disposal that we can. and wireless technology will play a critical role. if i -- it very likely will be cellular. i think points were covered nicely. back to. >> thank you. it's important to talk about the role of autonomous vehicles today in these policy discussions. i wonderful keep using the phrase behind the wheel to refer to someone who's in control of something after we are no longer behind the wheel literally for cars. it's clear this debate is quite old and a sense that it might be

intelligent transportation in spectrum has been in the works for decades. it's also very new with self driving cars. i want to shift gears and ask michael, should there be a mandate at all for vehicle to vehicle? >> we haven't focused on that were not claiming to be safety experts exactly some considerations i mentioned at the beginning of very important witches given the cost and given how long it would take to be effective i think the administration needs to look at

how much of a difference it will make. as mentioned the trajectory of driver assist technologies the radars and lasers cameras is only improving. it makes each car safer and makes the whole driving environment incrementally safer. a big problem that was frank and its rulemaking is that it will take your if they adopted it tomorrow be a few years before they would start doing it. it will take at least 15 years to even know if it's effective. you have to have it turnover in the vehicle which takes about 15 years.

were changing the nature of driving so radically over that same time, and these things are interactive with each other that it probably is better to leave it to the market but obviously within certain bounds. >> from a mandate perspective i thought you might say even if we're going to go forward will probably be eight years before anything took effect. there's an amazing amount of research that has to be done on top of the research that has gone before us to determine exactly how it would be implemented in all source of common periods.

what we saw in the obama administration was a shift to a voluntary relationship with the industry. i would say we should mandate emergency braking at a low speed. but it would be eight to ten years before saving life number one. they took a voluntary approach to get everyone to put things on the cars by certain date. there's something fundamentally flawed in the regulatory process. where there isn't a flaw, i think, i could be mistaken because i'm not a expert but i think they have more authority to implement mandates in that sector more rapidly and we might have a different conversation today if the approach had not been to be implemented only in

the commercial segment. today we have commercial vehicles with prc technology. if you had it in the car you could detect large wrinkles around you and immediately have a valuable proposition. there's something fundamentally flawed in the regulatory process to get to a life-saving proposition. >> i just want to point out the notion that michael raised about the amount of time it will take to robust technologies into the fleet that is all the cars we drive is a concern regardless of what radio technology you pick.

the average american is holding onto vehicle for more than ten years. it takes time for any new technology to be deployed. whether it's autonomous or radio base. to me, the question is does radio base capability for safety, is the increment of safety you'll get off the from semi autonomous technology in new cars today or from autonomous technology is it worth the cost? but we saw post rulemaking from the end of 2016 when they did their cost-benefit analysis, they were concluding yes. technology moves fast. before you go to a final rule you have to go to bed again to find out if regardless is the benefit worth the cost? >> 1200 lives or something would be saved.

>> i don't know am assuming the connection between the solution and the vehicle controls. that was just an alert or warning. >> the auto manufacturers all say they would integrate that data into their semiautonomous and autonomous technology. regardless of technology if you assume a radio technology. >> the main difference is that you can start providing safety benefits immediately once automated technology is deployed. it doesn't matter what other cars are equipped with. to be mandated they're looking at a cost breakeven point about a decade after the mandate started to take effect.

many argue that was overly optimistic. some of the lower levels like automated breaking which is promising, we could save just as many lives as overly optimistic regulatory impact says we could with the to be in just a couple of years as a post- wedding decades to reap those benefits. i don't disagree that the future were going to see automated connectivity that's not what they're talking about right now. if you look at the discussions and the rulemaking proceeding for very little, next to nothing

on on automated vehicles but finally even though we still have this rulemaking sitting out here open it's been designated as a long-term action will expect to work on it for 12 months. you'll see the things that is clear. the we saw the 2018 and 2022 strategic reports. also, we've seen guidance pullback of federal highway administration. i don't think the administration has finished this work but in addition to the redesignation of the preceding status we see

other indications from the department publicly that they're moving in a different direction. >> from a regulatory perspective with a proposed mandate it's really problematic for everyone involved. it's problematic for the automotive sector and where it's headed with collectivity technology. is also from a political perspective and allowing the fcc to move forward and get to place regardless of the decision we get more efficient use. >> some perspective on what were fundamentally looking at which i alluded to in my opening comments. for the first time were talking

about using cellular for an active face function which is quite radical. typically it is ben things like automatic crash automation or vehicle diagnostics but safety is a different group of guys. curious how the rest of the panel think about the fundamental shift? >> as i said in my opening, i think were lacking a couple things. were lacking an administrator who could clearly articulate 20 wind is blowing inside the agency. we don't have anyone sitting in the decision seat beside the

active person who is just pursuing what she has been given. i think there's been a lack of clarity around the business model of a cellular system. who would run it, do the carriers want to accept liability i be in the providers of a vehicle to vehicle crash avoidance system. they prefer auto manufacturers to take that liability? what would the business relationship be from the perspective of how is the band used, to what and what are the business relationships there? we don't have clarity and i be curious to know anybody else's scene i haven't seen clearly out

of the carriers. they all want to see what the technology can do which is good but haven't seen clarity about how the business model actually works. i will say that there is a very clear business model and it involves the consumer pain nothing want to buy the car. i think there's a consumer angle that needs to be clarified. >> that's a great point about the liability. it's a running theme in 5g that once the network has every part of the consumer's life on who's liable when the device doesn't work or something bad happens? >> one thing i mentioned in my opening is the fcc commissioners speaking about have been

emphasizing this distinction between b2b is real-time safety. but you need for safety has to have very low -- and completely operable to everyone or it will not work. this is a technology completely dependent on the network effect and every car happiness. and every car being able to talk the same language. there's a distinction between that and the other connective car applications you might to perhaps using alternative radios. what i've been hearing recently from local carriers is an acknowledgment and distinction

the government is gonna have to say every car for safety purposes -- is not just a mandate. if you can have safety signaling it must all be the same interface. it has to be interoperable. that has to be a peer-to-peer communication. were not talking for safety not talking about the way it works on your smart phone. it's like you go through the clouds were to each of the competing carriers different networks. it has to be for safety and it has to be peer-to-peer and directly between the cars. they're saying that can be the same 5g new radio but probably

something the automakers put a and operates and nobody knows who's in charge of it yet. all the other things you do was cellular would be things each carrier innovates around and competes on. that will go back through the networks. it's two different things. >> on safety how much spectrum is needed? >> what the department of transportation have in their notice of rulemaking and this is been true from the beginning, the requirements of all physical the vehicle signaling must be on a dedicated single channel of 1t

75 megahertz and they require all vehicle real-time safety signaling p.m. 10 megahertz. they also want to set aside a second channel for first responder because it could be at higher power level and in europe they decided we think safety requires 20 megahertz but were going to have a third channel so up to 30 is a contingency. it might be useful having cars communicate with stoplights and things like that. even though it's not time critical it could be on this third channel. europe is still going with up to 30 megahertz. that's why one of the proposals when i look like it would be mandated a leading proposal the

segment subband to say let's give safety and some exclusive mega 30 megahertz and at the top so wi-fi can share the rest with the emergence of cellular throws in this wild-card how can we still do it the same way and should we still do it the same way? since are starting from scratch to be easy for the to use the top for safety. but it's less clear how well they can coexist with wi-fi or if it even make sense because each of the family have their own networks pgh so, not clear how much control they would have over the entire 75 megahertz and

the situation. >> canal 110 megahertz channel for signaling. i think there's a misperception that this is dot spectrum. this commercial spectrum. this debate about the things that congress said except the fcc to decide. i look at what the spectrum needs are this new environment. >> just to apply some technolo

technology. the technology was designed with a vehicle to vehicle channel. it depends on an infrastructure channel. there's also a control channel at the top of the ban and a channel that state highway departments were going to use the ds rc proposal you can isolate 10 megahertz. they need something else. when the cellular came along they took the same model that put in cellular technology.

cells on board the vehicle weather that absolutely needs to be in the ban could be communication link could be in another band is a question but that is how it was designed. as a cellular version of the ds rc. >> it sounds like there's a direct automotive and they are ready contemplate operating over the existing licensing spectrum for the network communication. given the unique nature i think those returned to be thinking about it.

>> i will say using the same spectrum can use the same protocols and is have the same protocols fundamentally. that. >> we just had a white paper release this week that says exactly that. that cellular vendors and operators saying it's on the same spectrum. >> what is wi-fi put in? we've mentioned wi-fi and i want to focus in on a first second and talk about where it fits in to this spectrum policy discussion. michael jenna take a first crack. >> i think i've said my piece was still seeing a great growing demand for wi-fi technologies and increase consumer demands and congestion on the networks from the peak hours and studies

forecasting in the in a great new wi-fi standard both of them rely on 160 megahertz channel. right now we have one channel for everybody is not restricted by other connection roles. honor most rules you have one channel, but to get the country's first wi-fi channel 5.9 is really the place to do that. i think it's important for wi-fi users to meet that growing command that better words are

usually. >> hip wi-fi is going to keep pace in a 5g world, it is going to need wider channels and more spectrum. one misnomer as we often talk about 5g as this immobile carrier technology and network but it will be even more diverse and decentralized in the current 4g wireless world. so currently in we currently have 4g but i'm sure all of you and your smart phone is spending about 80% roughly of your mobile device data traffic is not touching the character spectrum are network at all.

it's going a short distance and that's what's keeping everyone thinks they pay too much but you had far less data if everything you are using actually went to the carrier network. because it's going via wi-fi into the wireline that's within a few hundred feet about 80% of the traffic that makes your mobile broadband more available and considerably faster and more affordable. when 5g comes along the same process needs to happen. the mobile carriers are using waves and getting more spectrums and wider channels and faster networks and we will all enjoy that except that will be too expensive unless wi-fi can keep pace with that.

right now the only place for those is the five gigahertz band. it's adjacent to this car band that were talking about. the fcc although it propose to make 750 continuous megahertz available to wi-fi in 2013 found among other problems that the military said we cannot share with certain radar and now were running into the issue of what were talking about today the 5.9 gigahertz. silly place we know right now in the upper five gigahertz band where you can get these channels so the entire system will be robust but the license and

unlicensed side of it. >> 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 to technology. one of those will be wi-fi. if you think wi-fi is not part of why g it's misinformed. that desperately needs more spectrum for all the reasons michael raised. i personally and many of us in the wi-fi industry have become -- it's painful to watch the 59 activities not advances quickly as we would like. the spectrum is sitting there largely on knees. cisco had a proposal to try to

share now are not even sure if they will eventually end up prevailing although were still sitting in the incumbent chair at least at cisco were sending more of our time and energy in mind share on opening up six gigahertz because we don't see a way to move it along towards any resolution whether it be cellular be to ask how much spectrum it will need. >> i think we're still hopeful will move forward. it is painful to sit seeing there underutilize. six gigahertz is interesting. we had some incoming satellites

there could be discussion for another panel. we're hopeful this'll find a way to share, i think why were not seeing this is the near-term option one reason is the preceding is not as advanced yet. we have five years of record development and i'm not willing to give up on it yet. in addition there could be some restrictions that might not be president five.nine so hopefully will think about the six gigahertz. >> this is a bit of an awkward conversation to be taken place. i'm getting an education on the

will wi-fi side of the issue. it's not a rational decision it becomes emotional and religious and then it comes to we have spent $700 million on this technology and come this far which takes it beyond the business model discussion of the real technical issue at stake or implications that touch everybody so what you just heard was the untold story of the debate. >> i'm glad that we could shed some light on an untold story. in a final thoughts quickly.

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> winded be helpful first to establish if we are to be moving through the objectives and

whether and then discuss bandwidth second. >> the main problem we have right now is and what danielle referred to earlier is that we have this regulatory overhang that not only is presenting regulatory uncertainty in the automotive industry but also its having negative impacts that the fcc and on the wireless it industry on the equipment manufacturer. until dot gets its act together and it's moving in a good direction but until it chooses a path and does so clearly, all the other stuff will be left unresolved. >> the logical order of resolution is the one you

suggested which we have to figure out safety first and then figure out -- one thing is that is still early days. there is a recent announcement by ford and other players that they would set up a testbed in california. i hope they share the data off that so people can see if the technology is living up to the marketing hype. that would be helpful it be really important for folks to start telling us what they think the business model looks like so that could be compared, we don't have that information today. we don't have clarity around those issues. i think that's the right intellectual pursuit.

>> i hear your concern. this is a challenge the federal communication faces often they're in a position of needing to designate and allocate bandwidth many years before technology takes off. certainly in order for technology to take off it needs to have spectrum security in place. they need to make some of these decisions quickly. >> this is where god stalled at the fcc. i think they had been waiting for the department of transportation to make at least a fundamental decision about what safety is needed. it's not so much a choice as the

air interface technology. they probably will use about the same spectrum where the same amount of spectrum for the purpose of safety. they really just need to decide is there going to be a mandate and what are they mandating. already in europe they decided 30 megahertz says about as much as what would ultimately be needed for the safety side of it. if they can make a decision like that would allow the fcc to have more confidence in allowing sharing of the other spectrum that might be before other safety applications. >> a lot of open questions. anymore from the audience?

>> my name is jack. on the safety and go what to the insurance companies think of all this? do they see this is something that's gonna be a big deal or not? . . >> as far as tesla was concerned they were paying a fortune because they took the

risk and the underwriting was based on historical data so in the future they will be very careful and slow to react. >> i think the insurance industry, yorty see car manufacturers like the bureau with those fatalities and they all try to move in that direction so i think the auto industry itself is trying in various ways to eliminate fatalities and accidents as a whole and whatever technology they need to do that. >> i have heard insurers express interest that is related to how they could interact with automated technology because not only does it have far more dramatic implication for the crash

numbers but it also has the potential to shift more liability to the manufacturers and away from the end user which is no longer directing the vehicle and traffic. so whenever they talk about this and cybersecurity aspect but as that relates to automated technology it is not. >> we have time for one more quick one. >> and from the teacher privacy for him. early on you had a session talked about the privacy protections coming into play

for those that wouldn't necessarily be in place and through the mandate the private sector also creates risk when the 5g is more privacy protected? >> they pride themselves on privacy protection and with the challenges if they could identify the cars from that provided data. my sense is it is equivalent maybe not cellular but that you could opt in or opt out from the wireless service space from the mandated protocol that is near the location but my understanding

it would be completely atomic myosin that is my understanding. >> presumably you think with the preservation of privacy but that is only in the context that would be to have the opt in or opt out proposition but for the safety i suspect it is the same protocol but that really should show a difference i don't think. >> thanks to you all for a great conversation and for joining us. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]