it is giving domestic manufacturing a new competitive edge in this global economy. the best thing washington can do is to encourage further growth in investment. as president obama noted in his recent speech touting 3-d printing hubs, if you want to attract more good manufacturing jobs, you need to be on the cutting edge. our company could not agree more. i'd like to thank the committee for holding this hearing and i'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you, mr. cobb. our next witness is peter weijmarshausen founder and ceo of shapeaways, the world's leading 3-d printing marketplace and community. prior to shapeaways, peter was the chief technology officer at sanjen which he and his team developed satellite broadcast modems. he's director of engineering at ermiska where he's responsible for delivering a business broadband service via satellite.

he was born and raised in the netherlands and moved to new york in 2010. thanks for being here. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman and members of the committee. i'm peter weijmarshausen. i'm ceo and founder of shapeways. i'm honored to be here today to discuss how 3-d printing is fueling small business growth enabling anyone to create a business with fiscal products at low capital cost. as a kid in the netherlands, i loved playing with computers resulting in a passion for open source software. driven by this and my entrepreneurial spirit, i spent much of my career at startup software companies. one was blender, the first company to publish a free 3-d software. this turned out to be important. in 2006 i learned about the technology called 3-d printing which prints physical objects based on 3-d computer designs. i immediately thought of the blender community. a large group of enthusiasts. they were using 3-d software but never imagined it would be possible to hold their own designs in their hands. i asked some of them for their designs to print. when i showed the products to

them, they were blown away. they agreed it would be great to have an online service and i knew there could be a business how big was yet to be seen. i started working in shapeaways in march 2007 within the lifestyle incubator of phillips electronics. at the time 3-d printing was used mostly for prototyping for large companies. and was very expensive. in 2008, we launched shapeaways.com for anyone to make and get products they wanted. we started printing products, not prototypes. in 2010 speak opinioned off to an independent company. we moved our headquarters to new new york is perfect for shapeaways, high talent tech savvy talent hungry for creative solutions. it is also a creative epicenter so we have the ability to talk to so many of our customers. at that point we had fewer than 20 employees. today over 140. in new york, seattle and in our factories in long island city. these factories are transforming

old industrial helps with factories of the future. with new and innovative processes and machinery. shapeaways is now the world's leading marketplace and community to make, buy and sell custom 3d printed products and looking at design opportunities for entrepreneurs. shapeaways is a success story in terms of small business growing out of endless possibilities of 3d printing but the opportunities created for 3d printing for entrepreneurs are immeasurable. when i think about what we can achieve, i relate now the internet has allowed software engineers to become entrepreneurs. bringing new software to market was difficult. you had to know what users wanted, build the software, test it, and then produce a lot of cd roms or floppy disks, bring it to retail and hope people would buy it. today, using the internet any software engineer can become an entrepreneur. the internet has removed the barriers, launching a website has become easy and google, amazon or facebook became successful quickly. similar to how 3-d removes barriers.

they can create their products, print it with little cost. update their designs quickly no need for marketing research in advance build products with payments and distribute their products directly on-line with no retail investment. they can evolve their products since they don't have to keep any inventory. and there is no question that entrepreneurs are taking notice. from 2012 to 2013 product uploads increased to 100,000 a month and the number of new people has leveled. 3d printing transforms how we think about launching products and enables the entrepreneurs in ways we never could imagine in the past. let me share with you how shapeaways works. anyone can upload a 3d design. many free and open source software programs available to use 3d modeling to anyone -- literally anyone can do it. after the design is unloaded the user selects the material to print and make it available.

shapeaways over 40 materials and finishes including precious metal, bronze, ceramic, plastic and sandstone. designs are reviewed by engineers, then unloaded to our printers and then printed. after which they are cleaned by the engineers, sorted and put in the boxes sent to anyone. 3d printing as described above is at the core of shapeaways. people have used it to create endless products for their business, model trains, jewelry, home decor such as lamps, dish ware, cups, plates, et cetera. i've brought a few samples you can see over here. of a successful business in shapeaways. goththam smith is an example. four friends working in new york city wanted to create something more tangible and lasting than a website or app. starting with designing cuff links and eventually moving into other jewelry, they used 3-d

molding applications to develop unique ideas. shapeaways gives them the ability to turn those into prototypes and then finally products. without relying on costly metal casting machinery they sell their products on shapeaways.com directly or through other channels and their business wouldn't exist without shapeaways or 3-d printing. the ability to easily create one-of-a-kind customizable products, extremely costly and labor intensive process, 3-d printing and shapeaways make it seamless. one company levering the technology is nervous systems. designs a process creating custom simulations, such as the growth of coral. their process generates jewelry and light fixtures. all of these are one-of-a-kind and 3-d printed by shapeaways, sold on our sites and in new york. one example of a successful business that is rapidly growing and employing more people as demand grows. i would like to conclude even the president of the united states has acknowledged this great opportunity shapeaways is working on, shapeways is

working with the white house to partner on the first ever white house maker fair. dedicated to showcasing and celebrating the maker movement. the goal is to support the culture of making and use it as a call to action for stakeholders and shapeaways has committed to help the white house use this moment in time to facilitate entrepreneurship and in the state of the union president obama spoke about the facility in ohio saying one warehouse is a state-of-the-art lab where new workers are mastering 3d printing and which has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything. it's true. 3-d printing does have the potential to revolutionize the way we make everything. i'm passionate about helping others see that and i hope i have effectively demonstrated to you the positive impact i can have on small business creating many jobs in the process. moving forward it will be critical the accessibility to 3-d printing remains uninhibited. thank you for your time today and allowing me me the honor to speak about 3-d printing, the technology i'm sure will change the world. >> thank you, peter. >> our next witness today is jan baum, the director of 3-d maryland which has been charged

with bringing the 3-d printing and rapid technology agenda to the greater baltimore region. miss baum is a full professor at towson university and founder of the university's object lab, a comprehensive state-of-the-art rapid technologies and digital fabrication lab. in 2012 she co-hosted the first rapid tech and additive manufacturing conference in the baltimore region and 2013 named an innovator of the year by the maryland daily record. miss baum, thanks for being here. >> chairman graves, ranking member velazquez and committee members honored to have the opportunity to speak with you about technologies about how we carry out our work across industries from product development and manufacturing to skull surgery and bioengineering, 3-d printing gives us new capabilities that alter how we compete in a global marketplace. i would like to start with a real world example. so i'm the executive director of 3-d maryland a statewide

leadership initiative to advance the engagement of 3-d printing and additive manufacturing as an innovative economic driver for maryland and america. 3-d maryland is located in the maryland center of entrepreneurship in howard county, maryland. within two weeks of a new client joining the maryland center, he sought me out and he said i hear you're the 3-d printing person and i said i am. he told me about his product he was innovating and wanted to prototype and sent $2500 to china and hadn't heard anything and could i help. i said well when do you need your prototype. i said send me the 2-d drawings and i will see what i can do. i had the 3-d digital files made and two days later he knocked on my door to check the progress. he put his head in my door and i pointed to the build platform across my office. he looked at the -- his prototype on the platform, looked at me, the printer at me, speechless. and i said that's your prototype

and he looked at the printer and back at me and said this is like magic. it's not magic but it is a tool that helps us do our work better, more efficiently, locally, and many times most times faster with optimized solutions across industries whatever work it is we're carrying out. 3-d printing and additive manufacturing is a disruptive 21st century technology changing who, how, when, why and the what of what we make and how we solve problems. if we can imagine it and we have the skill to design it the 3-d printers will print it. there's tons of examples on the table here today. it's disrupting economies of scale, current business models and democratizing production across industries. innovation and entrepreneurial opportunities are at the heart. there are barriers to engagement. access to knowledge, both trusted knowledge sources and understanding what the technology can and can't do. overcoming industrial thinking is a huge one. we have made things for a very

long time and we're very good at it. cost of entry, the allocation of resources whether capital or human is a challenge for small businesses and entrepreneurs and the position of the technology. are we there yet is a question we all receive regularly. 3-d -- the leadership of howard county in maryland, county executive ken allman, howard county economic development authority ceo larry twiel and the director of the maryland center of entrepreneurship are a strong leadership team for howard county and they easily saw the vision and the opportunity that these technologies brought and how it fit in with and supported small business and the entrepreneurial ecosystem. 3-d maryland is an initiative addressing barriers to entry and advancing the business advantages for business, industry and entrepreneurs, our target audiences. raising awareness and facilitating engagement in implementation. it is identifying and addressing opportunities to strengthen and advance the rapid tech ecosystem in maryland. and we're building a loosely

coupled system of collaborative relationships and partnerships across sectors to innovate and accelerate the region and the country's economic competitiveness. i respectfully recommend that this committee encourage and support initiatives such as 3d maryland that have a focus on multisector, cross disciplinary precompetitive collaboration building on the strengths and core competencies to advantage practices, foster innovation and grow regional ecosystems taking advantage of public funding sources. supporting initiatives like 3d maryland builds on the momentum created by recent initiatives such as the national manufacturing national additive manufacturing institute. addressing and creating an adaptive work force that all points on the spectrum is critical to our engagement of these technologies. i would recommend working at the grassroots level, locally with users, with proven track records from both industry and education. so we can institute some changes in k through 16, vocational

training and apprenticeship programs, et cetera. wider adoption is inevitable. we need to ensure that the work force is prepared to increase engagement. studies have shown that students who are educated in additive manufacturing processes are among the first to bring the advanced hands-on technologies to their employers something i have told my students since i established that lab. you are work force leaders. continuing to support research funding and programs that facilitate technology transfer, 3-d printing and additive manufacturing are just getting started. i thank you very much for your attention and your consideration of these technologies. >> thank you very much. we will recess just until after this series of votes. great. and then we'll come back and start with questions. committee is in recess. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank all of the panelists for a very impressive testimony.

it's interesting stuff. i know on the way over to votes a while ago, i was talking to mr. bentivolio who has some experience in your field and it's fascinating to talk about the possibilities and what all you're doing. so as a small business guy it's very rewarding to see the entrepreneurial aspect of this and folks are really doing some good stuff. one of the concerns that i have is, you know, getting start-ups like what you do and because it's a rather new product and process from the standpoint of not widely used i guess, are the regulatory problems we need to be aware of here in congress that we need to put a stop to or ways we could enhance your ability to do your job better? just go down the line. whoever has some comments or concerns about -- everybody has concerns about washington these days, trust me, and rightly so. mr. o'neill, do you want to start? any problems with us? >> i do not yet have any

problems with you. >> not yet. >> the keyword yet, right. obviously the health care law is something that concerns a lot of small business people and you're at that 50 if i recall. >> yes, we are. >> so that may be a concern to you, but from the standpoint of producing your products that's the kind of regulations i'm -- >> i figure if we just keep working hard, designing great products and making money everything else will figure it out. >> so far you guys are ahead of regulations you've outrun them and probably are okay until somebody figures out we need to stop these guys and regulate them. >> i don't want that to happen. our feet haven't hit the ground. we shipped our first order out of our house less than three years ago and, you know, now we keep moving, we've got 17,500 square foot facility and that's not big enough. we need a bigger one. i understand that there are some complications and i let other people in our business worry about those things probably why i don't seem concerned. i'm sure i should be, but -- >> hire people to worry for you, right? >> i really do because i don't like to worry. >> i understand. mr. cobb? >> thanks. yeah.

go back to the beginning of stratasys which is really started like i said in '88. we've shipped about 50% of our business overseas and we continue to do that at this point in time. it's been a big piece of our business. so, you know, if you look at areas that we're concerned about or could be concerned about, would be any export laws that would restrict the -- this technology from moving out from the u.s. i mean, if you look at the bulk of our business, we manufacture in new hampshire, we manufacture in new york, and we manufacture in minnesota. and so all these products are being exported. so anything that would harm that export -- >> at this point there is no problem with that area. that's not a barrier yet. >> there's been some discussion about that. since i had the opportunity to address the question. >> we want to be watchful for that. that's the purpose of the

hearing, to make sure we know those things ahead of time. >> yep. mr. wejmarshausen. i'm sorry. >> well, we are not really concerned about things that are currently in place, but there '2 might be something that you could help with or think of. shapeaways has a large community of designers that make their own ideas come to life using our platform. they upload them to our site and have them printed and we ship it back to them. and the other element of shapeaways is that we enable people to open shops where they can start selling these products and i brought a few you can see in front of me. now if some of these products currently infringe copyrights which very rarely but it does happen, then the dmca gives a very nice process where the copyright holder can send us a notice, we take down the product from our website, and the story or the discussion then is between the copyright holder and the person that is allegedly the infringer. that process kills very well. you have to realize we have 400,000 community members growing quickly. 100,000 new designs every month. these numbers are really large.

and dmca helps with the copyright end of the spectrum. however there is no such process for patents. so if someone would infringe a patent there is no clear process that would enable, you know, the patent holder to notify us so we can take it down and then the discussion becomes between the copyright or the patent infringer and patent holder. in that case, platforms like shapeaways are a party to the discussion which, of course, is really hard for us because we get so many new designs that it's completely impossible for us to check, also given the fact that in most cases we only print things only once, it's completely impossible to check whether there are patent infringements going on at the time. we're open to build compelling technology to help solve this, but since the dmca works so well

for copyrights i would, you know, suggest maybe think about having a similar type process for platforms like shapeaways and there is others coming up as well, in the united states and also abroad, to have such a process that can help these platforms stay scalable and flexible. >> do you have disclosure statements that you have to sign whenever you are sent a drawing of some kind by an individual or a company that says if you produce this object, that you are -- you are restricted from showing it to anybody else or anything like that? >> the idea about shapeaways openness. our terms and conditions do ask people, do you own the copyrights, the rights to use this product and upload it to shapeaways for one. do you have the rights to have it manufactured for yourself and do you have the rights if you want to sell it to others? and people have to state that they have those rights, of course. however, you know, some people might not read that. >> very good. my time is up. otherwise i would i would let

miss baum answer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for coming in. yes, we had an interesting discussion on the way to votes about the possibilities of 3-d printing. and i explained to my colleagues that i was a vocational education teacher as well as general ed and in the automotive design business almost 20 years and i'm very familiar with 3d printing and proud to say that many of my female students went on to case western to study biomechanical engineering because of cad and some of the things they got to make in my classroom using 3d printer at the time. we sent the design, they printed it for like $35, they sent it back in a nice package. instead of putting something on the refrigerator door, hey, mom and dad, look what i did in class, they got to put it on a table which was kind of interesting. but in that regards, i'm

wondering, the possibilities, we're looking at some things like, for instance, one of my questions is, if i took -- could scan something, can i, you know, digitize that and have it made, right? so, for instance, hip replacements, that kind of thing, could i use an x-ray data and convert it to digital and then have a custom made hip for a patient if i was a doctor? and there's some regulations that would have to come with that too, right? i mean it has to be sterile, made from specific material? we can do that with bone as well as if somebody crushed a bone, we could replace that using a 3-d printer and how long would that take, for instance? i'm not a doctor, is so i couldn't even name a bone in my wrist. >> both of those examples are in current practice today. so most of that, to my understanding, most of that work is being done abroad in germany and sweden. our cam is one of the oems in

sweden producing hip replacements. while we can take the personalized data from a ct scan or mri scan and digitize that and make -- build that into a three dimensional model right now what we're doing is creating the hip replacements in a small, medium, large, three or four sizes, because that does the job and does the job most effectively. and there are -- i'm going to not -- may not remember the name of the university that is doing the bone planting. i think it's in texas. growing bone structures. but biomedical engineering is huge, yeah. yeah. and i mean what i would say, i would share with you at johns hopkins university, there's a skull surgeon by the name of dr. dorshar and he uses 3-d printing to create 3-d prints to do preop planning and he -- so they know before the team ever goes into the operating room, exactly what the cuts are, what's removed, what -- where the staples are, everything done to simplify that process. i think that's fantastic. the doctor is working less hours in a stressful situation, the

patient under anesthesia less time and the operating costs are a huge contributor to health care costs and that's lower. this is disruptive technology. now that's upsetting -- that's going to upset the apple cart in many directions. so the business model for hospitals is now going to be disrupted. they may not be so happy about operating room costs -- operating room times being declined because they have to go back and rework the numbers again. health care, medical is one of the first industries to engage 3-d printing and additive manufacturing. >> great. so we can actually, for instance, if there was somebody that needed plastic surgery, a plastic surgeon could use the x-rays and know where his cuts are going to be, how he's going to repair this patient's face? >> absolutely. and they also use 3-d printing for surgical guides. so they put the 3-d print on the patient's body and know the

tool, the cut, the angle. they take a lot of the -- it takes a lot of the guesswork out. and i would just also volunteer that in terms of what 3-d maryland one of our first activities was to create an expert user group to gather all the expert users in maryland around these technologies and cross pollinate them and the applied physics lab is actually collaborating with dr. dorshar to build robotics to make that surgery even better, to make it even smoother. we're printing cells. i'm not sure again like who the doctor is doing this, printing skin, but they're printing skin during surgery from the patient itself. when you print cells from a patient, you really limit the risk of rejection or the body rejecting whatever you're putting in or on it. >> okay. so now we have that. and it also reduces 3-d printing, prototype build time, correct? no longer are we doing the giant clay models. we can actually design parts, for instance, for a motorcycle?

i could design everything on that motorcycle using a 3-d printer, put it together, make sure it fits and reduce my build time and prototype costs to -- do you have any numbers? >> when i see the case studies roll through, john can probably speak to this even more clearly, but when i see the case studies roll through and go what am i going to present like a baseline i think many times it's at least a third or fifth of both the cost savings and time savings. and then the other thing, too, like you have those savings but when you put those parts together and not quite right you're not going back to square one. you're tweaking. >> how long would it take, real quickly, how long would it take for me, for instance, once i have that information digitized and i'm going to do the surgery, to have maybe a model that i can practice or look at? how long would that take to have that prototype or the 3-d print. >> really, those are hard questions because you don't know how much data, what the scale

is, and scale is a factor. i would say so from thinking about dr. dorshar's skulls and he uses sla technology, i think those skulls probably take three or four hours maybe. maybe six hours. and what i'm advocating from maryland, i think it's a model that we could all look at, is that we -- that maryland create a consortium based model where we have state-of-the-art medical facilities so that dr. dorshar can see a patient from shock trauma and zip files right over to a local center and get them. we don't have to worry about fedex anymore. we'll start to really see improvements in the technology as well. >> i started in business, mr. chairman, when we took a body side molding on the car, sent it to the shop and waited three months to get a prototype model and now we can get it done in a matter of hours, right? thank you very much. i really appreciate you being here. i yield back, mr. chairman.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm sorry i missed the opening part. i was caught up in another hearing. thank you all for coming. so i may well be asking questions you answered and if that's the case, i apologize. i'll go back. i have a little experience in 3-d. we've been using that for five or six years in one of my companies to make small-scale models of fairly complex machinery as part of our sales proposal. you know, if it's a $6 million proposal it's well worth delivering that and maybe others are going to catch up but early on we were the only one doing it and a wow factor there and then we got the order everyone in the customers company wanted another one. so it is great. it's great for a lot of things. we use it as a sales tool. my question comes to, as this takes off, are there any quality control issues on repeatability and all the things you do in iso and other quality things for repeatability, and, you know,

cnc machines and whatever. i'm a machine shop guy. are there quality control issues and once you get into production and out of prototyping, i'm not sure who to ask, if somebody wants to jump in. >> so since we're building hundreds of thousands of products, over a month actually at shapeaways, we see these kind of problems pop up. we make, for instance, very popular iphone cases and, of course, for them to fit and to be clear, shapeaways doesn't provide prototyping only. we print final products. my iphone case i use myself is 3-d printed and many other people buy from shapeaways just to get a unique iphone case. they need to be exact fit. and since 3-d printing was used for a long time as a prototyping technology there is definitely need for the technology to improve from a quality perspective, from a price, and even from a speed perspective to meet the needs of today's consumers.

from prototyping perspective you always have somewhat of an option if the prototype doesn't come out right to do it again. if you have a consumer who has a birthday party where he needs to bring a present you have only one shot to get it out the door in time. the technology has come a long way and great we can make final products and enable so many people, but i think the technology is still to my opinion in its infancy and it will keep growing as the big consumer market ages. there will be large jumps in how the technology will mature. >> so, you know, as you're layering this, plastics, i understand, i'm sure powdered metals are probably being used some ceramics. >> yep. >> is that the place and what happens when you get into the need for some really high alloy steel, stainless steel, et cetera? is that way out or never? >> we are printing metals in several times. we print in silver, the same type quality you would find in a

jewelry store, ceramics, in stainless steel, brass, bronze, we're adding other precious metals soon. it's already possible. >> carbon steel too? >> not yet. >> okay. >> is that coming, do you believe? >> yeah. >> okay. >> so as this takes off, what is the thought on the cost? you know, today you've got a lot of machines running unattended. labor cost is all but zero. set a machine up and they pop those out in a dark factory. is this similar or -- what would be the labor costs to make a part using 3-d versus automated equipment today in a factory that the machine just does it without man power? >> sure. >> i think you look at where 3-d printing is being utilized today and as mentioned before, it is being utilized in a manufacturing environment. aerospace company, automotive companies, a number of people are using 3-d printing today. so i think we were where it

makes sense is, not the things we're thinking about where, you know, you're making tens of millions of bottle caps or something like that, but where it makes sense at this point in time, is when you have a short production type of run or custom run or something where, you know, because of regulations or other reasons, the part is constantly changing and so when you look at the costs of a piece part, the piece part cost you're going to get utilizing 3d printing is going to be more than injection molding. however, you're not going to have to build that tool. so as a small business owner, couple cases that were mentioned here today, you're not going to have that up front cost. you're also probably not going to have to have that up front knowledge as well because you can design some test it with a prototype and then start printing that as, you know, as your real part. so it's a little bit different

as far as high volume versus mid to low volume. i believe. >> thank you very much. my time has expired. i yield back. >> mr. bain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank the panel for their testimony today. you know with the rapid growth and accessibility of 3-d printing, there is room for great innovation as it's been stated. as many of you testified 3d printing creates opportunities for entrepreneurs. however, with companies like makerbot, do you feel eventually consumers will become their own manufacturers making their services and many small businesses that -- small business offer obsolete? >> you know, certainly makerbot and products like that really enable a lot of people to do

work as far as design work and then some production type of work that we were talking about. and i think for certain products, yeah, you could see where a product like makerbot would actually be used in a home environment. i think, though, that where some of the big opportunities for 3d printing comes in is really in the manufacturing process. it, as we talked about before, it allows current manufacturers to build things in a different manner, to customize things in a different way, so i think there's certainly some products that yeah, are absolutely geared toward that but if you look at the use of 3-d printing and all the different materials that are going on today, i think the bigger advances are going to come in the manufacturing area.

and with that comes a whole area where, you know, students today or people in the work place today are used to manufacturing and traditional methods. so training of people that are currently employed or training of students to design, utilizin 3d printing is one thing, but then to manufacture using 3d printing is vastly different. it's different than injection molding. but it can be used, in fact, and that's one of the big inhibitors i think in getting 3-d printing into small and medium sized companies is because characteristics of a 3-d printer are different than the characteristics of injection molding, for instance. >> on another note i serve on homeland security as well, and the potential of creating weapons through this 3-d printing, what is the feasibility, the possibility, and, you know, someone coming nondetectable firearm or

something? >> well, we've been staunch supporters of the plastic gun legislation that got re-enacted i think at the end of last year as a matter of fact. so it's something that has been demonstrated at some point. but we've certainly been a supporter of the legislation that's taken place up to this point. looking at the restrictions on that opportunity. >> okay. but someone could -- could someone potentially, you know, not follow the guidelines and regulations for this type of product and create something that's not detectable and cause a problem? >> i'm -- i'm not an expert in it but i think that you need some type of metal, either a bullet or the firing mechanism, to -- for the firearm, so again,

i'm not an expert on that, but from what i know i think it would be difficult. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it always makes me nervous when the technology like this is here in congress because it means we're paying attention to you and let's face it, when the bureaucracy pays attention to a technology we often try to regulate it or screw it up. and i say this in the contents of someone that believes one of the great successes of the internet was the fact that it grew and grew and grew before sort of the bureaucratic mechanisms truly understood it and were able to slow down the investments, the capital, the creativity.

so what is -- for whether it be 3-d printing or even the thing that maybe you and i haven't even found out to define yet which may be the large scale or the high speed production of such, what's the systemic threat to the industry? is it copyright? is it the source files having patent litigation or copyright litigation chasing? or is it those of us in government and bureaucracy? if i came to you and said over the next decade, this is one of the great disruptive technologies that's going to make us a more efficient society but we have to conquer these risks to that expansion, for each of you? start with mr. o'neill, what would you say, what are the systemic risks to the technology? >> well, i'm an entrepreneur so i'm not representing the

manufacturers. we use the technology to create innovation in our own business. so, you know, these kind of questions don't really apply to us, but i would sincerely hope no legislation comes in that would restrict our ability. >> what about the discussion that i -- i know we've all been run pg in and out so i haven't heard, copyright? >> copyright is a concern to us as a copyright holder and a holder -- as a holder of 30 patents i'm concerned that people will infringe our patents and our designs and they'll print them and we've had that happen. we had that happen with shapeaways. but we worked with them and they were able to deal with it. it's a concern. it seems like, you know, something that needs to be addressed but i don't -- i'm not sure it's a 3d printing specific concern because it's still -- ip is ip.

people in china making counterfeit products all the time of us. they're not doing that with 3-d printing but traditional manufacturing. >> what's the systemic risk on ip, i think there's been the discussion of saying if i change a bit of the source code does that relieve me of a copyright? >> well, i guess as a manufacturer, you know, the laws in this country, you have the patent protection from a manufacturer, what we do is we spend 10 to 12% of our overall revenue on trying to be more innovative, staying ahead of things that will fall out as far as a patent goes. i think looking at -- you talked about what can be inhibitor. one of the things, maybe a little off base here, but i think one of the things that will not help the industry as much as possible is people, young people, and traditional workers, not being educated in this technology. and i think as a real opportunity at this point in

time to have education at a high school level, at a grade school level, and then even workers that are displaced, because of manufacturing -- i think manufacturing is starting to come back into the u.s. and i think 3d printing is a portion of that and i think there's a real opportunity for the federal government to get more involved in training of new students and traditional work force. >> but to understand, we get involved, there's also certain risk profiles that come with that. >> i understand. >> what would be a systemic risk to your business? >> well, i already laid it out briefly, is that, you know, an issue you mentioned, we want to -- shapeaways is a platform of service so what we want to do is create as many products for people as they like and make it possible for them to create things that weren't possible before. in that way democratizing how people think about products.

everybody can make things instead of only big companies. but we are taking very serious the responsibility that we need to take that we can only make things that are original. and the good thing is, you know, shapeaways has made over 2.5 million products to date that the amount of products that we had to take down, the amount of products that we actually made using the printers, that were infringing in hindsight were extremely small like in counting on one hand or two hands. less than ten that we actually made. that's i think the good thing because people grasp that they can now make anything they want, it's not the first inclination. the technology is much more expandable than mass manufacturing so much easier to copy something popular with traditional manufacturing technologies as mentioned in china perhaps, then you can do on a 3-d printer. >> and forgive me, i'm up against time, academia has an interesting world where it sits

there, where what's sort of in the public domain, what is -- so you may have to navigate some more interesting discussion there. >> well, i guess what i would -- my response to the question is, may bridge academia, may not. i'm an advocate of the technology for business industry and entrepreneurs. and what i hear from my expert users one of the things that's going to hold the industry back is proprietariness of both the hardware and the materials. so i think the expert users that i see using the technology in the most advanced way, say to the oems i don't care about your warranty, i want under the hood and they will hire a third party contractor that provides the warranty so that they then can put in any material they want and they can tweak the parameters. if you -- if you don't do that, then you are paying about $25,000 per set of parameters to be under the hood. and so -- i know peter agrees with me. keeping the technology open just like your example your leading

example of the internet you got to keep it open. the u.s. is not a leader in this technology. i think the western world is leading it, but -- >> i know i'm way over time. real quick, the code, the underlying code, proprietary to each manufacturer or sort of a common script? >> proprietary? the parameters you run the machine on and the materials you put into the machine. >> yeah. if i were to hop online right now and want to start design and actually do some coding, i'm a decade old, out of date, sql programmer. >> i'm going to let john jump in on that one. >> well, i think if i understand your question correctly, the capability of sending a file -- >> how proprietary is the software for each manufacturer. >> the software to actually allow you to print a part? correct. >> i'll answer two ways.

the software that allows you to have access to the printer is common. it's called an stl file. that's common to all the different companies that are out there. then what's proprietary would be actually how the printer prints. each one of them uses a variety of different technologies and parameters so that would be proprietary if that answers your question. >> mr. chairman, thank you for your patience with me. thank you. >> could each of you -- you all brought a variety of things. starting with mr. o'neill can you tell us what you've got in front of you? or show it off. >> sure. well as i said before, when we -- we have to bring products to market quickly because the iphone refreshes every year and usually refreshes around september or october. so to get the products into the stores for the holiday season, we have to be very quick. so whenever there's rumors on the internet we'll take those rumors and take the specification actually print a copy of an iphone.

copy of an iphone. a 3-d one based on the rumors. then we'll print a product that would hold our lenses, a clip, that, you know, to see how it fits, see how well, it works and evaluate whether we're happy with that. we'll keep working on this through all the rumors. every time there's a new rumor we'll do a new one and hundreds of designs of the product to get it right. when apple does release the phone, then we've got this product that we can put on there and test our lenses on the new device, we can test the fit and how it is, and then if we're happy with everything we send it out to manufacturing and have tooling made so we can do injection molding and then we're in production and that whole process takes about six to eight weeks. >> mr. cobb? >> little bit picking up on what patrick was talking about. this particular part was a part that really gets the idea of taking a prototype into a realistic area. what we've done is utilized a printing process, somewhat similar to an ink jet printer,

but it gives you really the realism you get from a part and that's what a manufacturer or designer is looking for. in the particular process that we're using here, called poly jet, what it allows to do is mix materials. so you have something very durable, call it digital abs the white part but at the same time printing this flexible material as well. this was printed as one part. okay. then just recently, we introduced the capability of the multiple material and then we've added color to that. you can actually then print a very realistic in this case a prototype shoe but a realistic prototype shoe that to most people coming in here looking at this, you would probably think it was the real thing. and then getting towards the idea of real things, this particular part is a different technology that we have called fdm.

fused definition modeling. this particular technology takes real thermal plastic, so nylon, poly carbonates, abs that are being used today in manufacturing, typically in injection mold process, but in this particular case, this is in the abs part that we're seeing here, this was printed, again, about 18 different components here, this was all printed in one particular piece. okay. so from a prototyping standpoint it allows you to look at a lot of different things that are going on because it's not just an individual part, it's the assembly and this particular prototyping technology allows you to look at those assemblies, testing for form, fit and function. and then as you go a little further, you can also because it's real thermal plastics these are the types of materials being used in real life today for end use parts in aerospace, automotive, some consumer goods. >> well, i brought a variety of products.

it's hard to choose if there's so many people creatively active. so in my testimony i used an example of a design collector from new york called gotham smith and they make men's jewelry. these are cuff links that are made in sterling silver, designed by them and they're for sale on our platform and they sell it in a different way. so that's one example. another that is really cool is a game. just almost organic movement crowd funded, the space program, they made a little game and very passionate community behind it and few guys figured out can we take our assets from the game and turn them into real things. they uploaded it to shapeways and it was working. so now this is people -- went on the internet and went viral and everybody wants to have them. two very different examples. i mentioned nervous system, they use algorithms, they don't

design the products by hand, no cat software involved. they write computer code that mimics nature and by doing that they can create unique items all the time. this is an example of a light shade with an led light inside. you can go on their website, on shapeaways, you can find these products and they are for sale. miss baum has brought another product, which is a customizable necklace and this is also from nervous systems. so you can see it's a wide variety from jewelry to lighting fixtures to gadgets and game accessories and i can keep going for hours but i won't. >> miss baum. >> right now i'm wishing i had selected my samples a little differently and i had some skulls sitting up here and the face transplant model that dr. rodriguez did a year ago. the other thing that i wish i had brought is an example of 3-d printing with a -- with traditional metal plating over

top of it. one of the companies in maryland, they plate specifically on 3-d printed objects extending the life of the plastic prints. classified. but what's in the knowledge center at 3-d maryland is a one-tenth scale thruster that they did for boeing. those objects are really impressive. what i have in front of me are is prototype soles for underarmour. i'm close friends with underarmour and frequently behind the door with them. e right now they're prototyping soles. this is a watch and this is off of one of mr. cobb's systems, and this is the same idea of the gear shifter. very flexible material and rigid at the same time. this is also from northrop grumman located in maryland. prototyping an used parts. this is had post production

machining done on it. i guess i would tag on with peter about this little guy. this particular printer prints in full color. we talked about entrepreneurs and we talk about the uses of the technology. if you take a 3-d photograph of yourself or maybe your daughter or grandchildren and you want to have that replicated into a doll, your kids can have dolls that look like them, if that's what you want to do. mickey labs is doing that in the uk. stanley black & decker also located in maryland uses this to color code the parts of their tools as they put it through a production. orange is one division, green is another division, or they code the parts accordingly. inherent to the technology. the last sample that i also talk about is this architectural model. we're all probably old enough to understand that architectural models before 3-d printing were made painstakingly with x-acto

knives. if a picture is worth a thousand words a prototype is worth a thousand pictures. as our society gets more and more visual our literacy maybe declines but we get more visual. that's more and more true. i profiled a company in baltimore, a traditional foundry, a wonderful american story. 94-year-old family-owned business, three or four generations. and they started losing their patternmakers. they said, how are we going to solve this problem? they don't want to see this successful business change. so they adopted 3-d printing in 2010. they have a number of stratus' machines, the highest that stratus makes. they say they win bids becauses project they're going to build and that's how they get successful bids. >> in terms of your different

mediums that you print with, how does that translate into durability or strength? i'll let anyone of you answer. >> i'll point the finger to mr. cobb because he's got the highest end materials. >> the bulk of our business is in the thermal plastic area. but i talked about the nylons and polycarbonates, in traditional manufacturing would be utilizing an injection molding process to bring those parts. we don't quite do that. we don't melt that and we don't put pressure into it. we actually use the layer technology that we all talked about in the past. so the characteristics of that are different than the traditional injection molding. now, we are using real abs, real nylon and real polycarbon.

there's a number of manufacturers around the world. we select one of those. the difference is not in the material itself, but the difference is in the way the part is actually manufactured. and so what i was talking a little bit earlier, we talked about having the knowledge from a designer, the knowledge from a toolmaker and the knowledge from a manufacturer to understand that a 3-d printed part is, in our case, a real thermal plastic but it's made differently than the traditional injection molding. injection molding has been around for a long period of time. there's a handbook that really talks about injection molding, the principles to make sure you build a durable part. there's no such thing for 3-d printing or manufacturing today. as the technology evolves, new materials evolve and they're evolving every single day. having that knowledge to understand the differences between injection molded part, in the case of thermal plastic, and a 3-d printed part is going

to be important in producing more and more parts for end users because they can be used utilized 3-d printing, they are being used in 3-d printing. but it's a different design criteria and a different manufacturing method and it's different. >> can you take -- let's say you don't have a drawing or you don't have a -- you're doing just in the restoration industry, out of curiosity. can you take an existing or wore-out part and create data points and turn around and reproduce that? and how expensive is this for somebody to -- like if they employ or call somebody, they obviously don't want to buy the technology themselves. they'd just as soon have somebody do it for them. how expensive it is to create that part as a model to be able to fit up? >> so you can use scanning technologies that are getting more and more powerful today. we actually were just at south by southwest where we were

scanning people at parties which was a big party hit. the same way you can take a part and if it's still in one piece, you could scan it. not all parts can be scanned, however. you need to be able to see all items of it. it will be very hard to scan this part mr. cobb brought with him, but more simple products, you could very easily scan. those scanners are getting very affordable. the pictures they take turn into a mold you can print and you can print it in a wide variety of materials. to your point of questions around what does it cost, well, the scanners are available from a few hundred dollars up to like have high end professional stuff. the printing itself, again, depending on the material you want to use, items the size of an iphone case would cost you 20, $30. things that are getting bigger, they're 50 to $100 in plastics. if you talk about metal, objects the size of this are around 100

to $200. but this is like real stainless steel. so you can make things in silver, all kinds of materials based on scans if you wanted to, and it's been done. >> you can build up in metal? >> sorry? >> you can build up in metal? >> yes, metals are possible just like ceramics and plastic, yeah. >> fascinating. with that i want to thank you all for participating today. again i apologize for the vote seriaries that happened during r hearing but your testimony has helped us to discuss how it is spurring growth and a lot of opportunities for entrepreneurs around the nation. with that i would ask unanimous consent that members have five legislative days to submit materials for the record. seeing none, without objection, i would say hearing's adjourned.

tonight here on c-span3, a special presentation of the 2014 new york ideas festival. speakers include the founders of kickstarter, chobani yogurt, voters choose.org and gabby giffords. you'll also hear about new efforts to cure cancer. discussions on the origin of the universe and the future of finance. that's tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span3. our campaign 2014 debate coverage continues. tonight at 8:00 on c-span, live coverage of the minnesota governors debate between incumbent mark dayton, republican candidate jeff johnson and independence party candidate hannah nicollet.

thursday, between joe dorman and mary fallin. also thursday on c-span2, the nebraska governor's debate. and saturday night on c-span at 8 clock p.m. eastern live coverage of the montana u.s. house debate between john lewis and ryan zinke. c-span campaign 2014. more than 100 debates for the control of congress. now a look at the impact of regulations on the future of connected cars and self-driving cars. speakers include representatives from toyota, verizon and the global automakers association. the event starts with brief remarks by david strickland, former national highway traffic safety administrator from the annual consumer electronics association innovators summit in las vegas. this is about an hour.

>> good afternoon, everybody. i hope you're enjoying the first full day of ces, although it's kind of the first official day. my name is john quain. i'll be the moderator for today's panel. we have some opening remarks and i want to introduce the next speaker. he's been sort of riding shotgun over things for four years now and a couple weeks left. it's been a very interesting four years and promises to be a revolution of what's going on in the automobile see the. i'd like you to please welcome david strickland. >> well, thank you so much, and wow, this is a superstar panel. i need to be standing here a little bit longer to learn something here. as a number of you may be aware, i'll be stepping down from my post at nhtsa administrator in a couple of weeks.

but i wanted to share a couple perspectives very quickly. i have been told five minutes and i'll keep to five. we first began our work during my tenure on distraction'd4 starting really in earnest in 2009, 2010. and i remember my decision to make sure that i came to ces as part of the regular auto show tour, because ces has effectively become the fourth marriage auto show in america. and gary shapiro and the team at cea and manufacturers recognizing that car companies are no longer just car companies. we really are technology companies because there is a convergence. with convergence, there's possibilities, there's opportunities, there's also great risks. so as my valedictory, if you will, in terms of where we are,

what we have seen and where we will go, i'm incredibly happy to see that so many partners are now talking to each other, which wasn't the case not that long ago. where you have wireless providers and handheld manufacturers and automakers and system platform providers, the androids, the windows, and the ioss of the world, are actually now in strategic partnerships in figuring out ways forward. and speaking of which -- [ phone rings ] [ laughter ] i wish i said i had planned that, but i really didn't. that's all good things. but i will tell you that from the part of the agency nhtsa as a safety regulator and there are other regulatory bodies that are going to be part of the space in addition to nhtsa, the federal

communications commission and the federal trade commission. we have only one chance to get this right. so i implore all of you to continue on your path of not only communicating at the level you're talking right now, but frankly building a broader basis of how we attack the problems that we see in the future of connectivity and as connectivity at large, vehicle-to-vehicle connectivity that we're working on at the agency level. connecting the driver to the vehicle. connecting the driver to the outside world. and how we can innovate all these things safely. but i will tell you the one thing that will disrupt all of this, our hope in vehicle-to-vehicle communications, our hope in active safety systems, our push for technology at nhtsa through significant and seamless initiatives where we're focusing on increasing belt use through seat belt interlocks. looking to eliminate drunk driving because having the vehicle recognize if you're over the limit, and reducing human

error, which is 90% of all traffic crashes. the hope of reducing traffic fatalities to 10,000 people, 5,000 people, is all based on this technological hope, but we won't attain it if we don't >ñk address privacy and data and all of those components which people hold dear. we're in a really sensitive time in america in regards to these issues. and the power of everything that we're relying on in safety systems and connection will not be attained if consumers don't trust the work of the regulators or the work of industry. so my last official request is that nhtsa administrator at the consumer electronics show is we have to do more. we have to be better, and we have to do it faster. the agency is in a position right now where i have always said we sort of follow the notion of what wayne gretzky's

dad said to him in his years of being a young hockey player. don't go where the puck is. you have to go where the puck is going. nhtsa has to do that, and we will. and i have a very strong team that will continue that work. but everybody in this room has a responsibility. we're going to hold these goals. we have to make sure that we have the trust of the american people for all these wonderful innovations you see on the floor. so that is my hope and that is my wish. i want to thank, again, everybody that's in this room and all the partners over the past four years that have frankly made this the most dynamic time that probably any knit is administrator has had in office. and i want to say you guys truly have the ability to do god's work. keep talking, keep planning, keep innovating, keep growing, and please keep safety as the number one priority. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. that was very interesting. so we're going to talk about

privacy only today. now, you know, i have been coming to this show out to las z vegas for almost 25 years now, to technology shows. i've heard innovation revolution till i was deaf from hearing it. but honestly, you know, this year, we are really seeing the start of something that will revolutionize travel, safety. david, you know, alluded to the idea of zero fatalities that people realistically talk about now. but there's a long road to get there. so that is sort of what our starting point is going to be. i'm just going to very quickly run through the folks on the panel here and then get off on on this discussion because we don't have a lot of time. and i'm not going to be able to do it in order either. we have hilary cain, kevin link, from verizon. thilo koslowski.

andrew brown, delphi and mitch bainwol from automobile manufacturers. the first, since dave was just here and talking about it is, and it's a policy kind of discussion, is how can anybody in legislature, government, keep up with the changes we see? i mean, we've already seen -- many of us got a demo today brand new things, how can you legislate, protect the public and help manufacturers, et cetera, and can they do that? and i'll start off with, if you want to start right off. or we can -- >> no, that's fine. so the question is, how can we keep up or how can the administration keep up with what's changing in the telematics world or the automotive world? have to have a lot of people, i guess. full employment act for the government because it's changing dramatically. and i think a lot of the change is good. and there's a lot of innovation. the cars are getting smarter. yes, the cars are connected. and i think to his last point

about safety, it's at the core of the connected vehicle is safety. there is the technology that's been around for 18 years that will notify in case of an accident. and if you think about how many accidents are reported from the vehicle, from those technologies, it's out there, it's connected. how do they keep up? i think it's things like this. i think there's initiatives where we as an industry need to start coming together. i'm not a believer that we need to throw policy at everything that happens in the car because policy often will stymie innovation. and i think the technology that got us to these safer cars, these connected cars, the h÷ technology that allows us to have hands-free calling in cars, the technology that connects you to your dealer or the diagnostic, that same technology can be used to solve some of these things that i think nhtsa's worried about. i agree with him 100%. we need to come together as an industry, and we need all the players at the table to figure

out, you know, how to use that same technology to solve some of those issues. >> yeah, andrew, yeah. >> yes, first of all, i want to compliment administrator strickland because i think he, like no other administrator before him, actually reached out to the industry to try to understand the nature of the technology, to try to understand what could be possible. not that it needed to be in a regulation but to stretch their thinking about the possibilities. and i think he was very receptive to that. now, from that point going forward, i think not just nhtsa but all government administrations that or government agencies that work in this space need to reach out to industry, reach out to consumer electronics sector, reach out to

academia because there are a lot of players in this space. and all of us have a piece of the equation, and it needs to be more collaborative. it's not like the old days where we were off in our separate corners, and then we came out fighting. i mean, what must happen is that we work together to achieve the best solution for everyone concerns. industry, government and ultimately the consumer. >> i would like to echo what andrew just said about david. he was an incredibly accessible guy who -- and is. it's not his obituary here. but kind, thoughtful and a real love of technology that came through his work. david, when he spoke, said the problem of connectivity, and i'm going to quibble with that a little bit. i think the issue here is the opportunity of connectivity. we have this kind of dawn of a

great new age in safety that connectivity is going to usher in, and the question is, is the pace of change consistent with the nature of government in the modern world? and i think the answer is, unfortunately, maybe not. the regulatory process takes two to three years to implement a reg. every show at ces, you see dramatic new innovations, so yeah, we talk about innovations, but the innovation is finding its way into the marketplace now and quickly, and it's really profound. i was just at the show a bit ago and went through the mercedes display, and there's the wearable watch that commands the interface. the innovative system. and you know, that's pretty striking. and as a metaphor, and i don't say this to pick on that stuff because i think nhtsa does the

best it can do with really dedicated public servants, but the distraction guidelines that came out earlier this year were visual/manual, dealing with 2% of distraction problems to the integrated system. didn't deal with the cell phone, didn't deal with wearable watches or voice or gesture, and i think that's a perfect metaphor for the challenge here, because it just is not relevant to the problem that is today. and the way you deal with that is by government serving a very different role, and instead of government being a regulator, government, i think, should be a facilitator of conversations between all of the various players on the panel and in the room. so the carriers and the manufacturers and the software guys and auto manufacturers, we have got to find a way to pull together so we can produce a product in a car that is safe for everybody. and we are used to dealing with nhtsa. these other elements of this new eco system we're not, and we have to deal with that.

>> go ahead. >> i would also like to add, i think the point that there needs to be more collaboration and cooperation among the various players in this field is absolutely right. and i also think we need to emphasis there needs to be collaboration and cooperation among those that are doing the regulating. we have seen that more pronounced in the last few months, last year or so, where we are talking about privacy. so we're talking about the federal trade commission. so we're talking about the federal communications commission and talking about nhtsa and its traditional area. i'm not sure there's enough -- i would argue perhaps there's not enough cooperation and collaboration among those regulators as well. i think we have seen that play out most profoundly perhaps in the vehicle-to-vehicle communication space of late. >> one of my questions with the fcc work with nhtsa because we're integrating all these services. but coming back to the original idea, so would it help with studies like the 3 hss this

vehicles in ann arbor and doing that v-to-v study, does that help the government understand what's going on? is it something like that, or should we be doing something like end cap in europe where we don't force a standard but we put out a star rating for your car. and so if you don't have collision avoidance on that car, it gets one star rather than five. are those different kinds of approaches to that? >> i definitely would think that's a big piece of it. and i would like to introduce ultimately the consumer. right? that would determine if something does work or doesn't work, because all of you might reject some of this stuff if it doesn't do what it's supposed to do. i actually believe the government plays a huge role in really facilitating innovation. not necessarily stifling it. i mean, there are process related issues of getting things done quickly, but at the same time if there wasn't any regulation at all, this would be the wild west. maybe everybody in the room put anybody in danger, there are

other approaches i have seen, in particular from tech companies, not automotive companies that certainly would put you at a risk. that's where the government has to play a role, but ultimately, it's the market force that will determine what sticks and what doesn't stick. i actually believe that this whole notion about driver distraction, for example, which has been a huge topic and continues to be one, actually will force the automotive industry to become so much more innovative in how you serve up information and enable consumers to consume that content, maybe create content on their own and share it with other people, that this would really help to bring innovation to the marketplace. if you wouldn't have any of those guidelines in place, none of that would actually happen. i think you'll see the industry shifting their mind-set on this. if you plant the right seeds and create a structure for people to think of what needs to happen in order to excite consumers and still allow them to have their digital lifestyle in their vehicle being presented, that's when it gets, really, really interesting. and that has to be the role of the government. that includes some of the demonstrations and testing.

>> you mentioned the safety launch in ann arbor, which i think is a great example of how government should engage. and i mean, it's a great demonstration. in fact, i think it's an excellent model in terms of engaging or facilitating the oems, the tier ones, you know, the academics. other players who have technologies that telecommunications communities, because it's an attempt to try to understand the technology. not only what's possible, what's doable, and what's affordable. and to understand some of the flaws, some of the benefits, and to try to understand that in the context of data. data that will help us assess what's truly feasible and how workable are those solutions. i mean, if you just step back for a moment and think about

this, i mean, any new technology for connected vehicle that you put into the marketplace, at best, it's going to go on 15, 16 million vehicles here in the united states and maybe 70 vehicles -- 70 million vehicles globally. but here in the united states, you have, what, 330 million vehicles already in the car park and yet you're only producing 15.6 or 16 million new vehicles each year. how do you really make it effective if it might take you 20 years for the technology to propagate throughout the car park? so regulators need to understand that legislating something instantaneously doesn't mean you fix the problem. in fact, you may cause a bigger problem. and you may increase the cost of the technology. so it's much better in my mind to try to work through and facilitate with the players to understand really what is

possible. >> could you do that with vehicle-to-vehicle? i started looking at this and thinking, well, if i'm a major automaker, could i introduce it in my vehicles by myself? it wouldn't work across the board, but it might be, you know, the tip of the iceberg to start to get that technology out there. or is it something that is just no way, too dangerous. i could come up to an intersection and get a false alert, so you can't do it on your own? >> well, it's a very lonely discussion that you would have. if only your car has it and nobody else. that's where the government has to regulate some of those aspects, but again, consumers will actually determine if this technology will work or not. because if they find value in it, the car manufacturers see incentive in putting the technology in their car, but you still have to have regulation around it. i always come back to these two aspects. it's the consumer side, the market side, if you will, plus the technology. if the government can help to create innovation by mandating

some of the aspects if it's proven that you can save lives or productivity. that's going to be the main motivation, those two aspects we can realize and considering that all of us, any country in the world won't see more investments in the road infrastructure means we have to get better, smarter about using the existing infrastructure that we have. that alone i think will motivate these technologies going forward. >> i think you need to distinguish v-to-v fromqt drive assist or self-driving cars. in one case, you have an infrastructure component that's a real role in government, and we alluded to -- did not get into this question of the fcc, but this is a tricky proposition. on the one hand, we're faced with an opportunity to have massive gains and fatality rates that connectivity would usher in. it requires a major investment

in the part of government, on the part of manufacturers. major embrace on the part of consumers. but it also requires a certain spectrum, potentially. this is where the organization, the government and the modern world doesn't fit. the dna of the fcc is not necessary auto safety. it's wi-fi, it's the internet dna, a very, very different perspective on life, so this is a bit of a challenge for us. >> it's a huge -- it's -- am i still on? it's a huge problem. i thought i might have cut off. it is a huge problem, and quite honestly, we expected david was maybe going to make some kind of an announcement on spectrum and making sure that spectrum is ,h available. but the payoff, if you look at it, by reducing fatalities and injuries by 80%. just look at what you could do  as far as reducing gasoline, look what you could do as far as reducing time that's wasted on highways and all this. it's incredible.

the challenge is great. you look at it, and we talked to all of our members about it. the question is, are you ready to make the investment? well, what is that investment? is that standing behind your product for 20 years on v-to-v or v-to-i and what does that mean? where's the liability? and that's where if we go back to the original question that was first raised for me in the '90s with then-nhtsa administrator who said that the technology is moving so fast we can't keep up with it. the problem the manufacturer has is they run with the technology, and if the regulation is something that is different than what they have invested in, that's the exposure they have. the way we have been dealing with this issue is by having very good communications with not only the in it -- nhtsa administrators and others. we're regulated bumper to bumper. we have seven or eight agencies

who are all regulating how we build our product. we need to have that collaboration. i forget who said it early on, but back when nhtsa was created in the '60s, it was like hell no, we don't want to go, as automakers. that's changed dramatically and it had to change for us to come up with a more cooperative arrangement so we can solve the problems together because no one has all the answers. >> john, quick thought on the v-to-v, vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure. i think the business case of the magnitude of lives that can be saved and the property damage that can be prevented and the congestion, i think that's pretty clear. but to get to that point, we have got the get the consumer and the driver base comfortable with the concept of the connected vehicle, where data is going to be shared and vehicles are going to talk to other vehicles, and that's not a small tahgñ& it's no surprise that even today with all the technology, a small, small share of cars are connected. and we've got to get the consumer base comfortable with the idea of a connected car,

what the benefits are, what the value is before we can jump to this v-to-i and v-to-v. i think there's some steps we need to take before we get to that point. that is trying to get greater adoption of the connected car, trying to get the consumer base comfortable with the benefits of the connected car, and get greater adoption. that greater adoption includes addressing things like privacy that david mentioned, but there's steps ahead of that. >> that's one of my questions too often during these discussions is, you know, engineers talking about there is a gating factor and the gating factor is us. we think we're all great drivers, but we're not all great drivers. and we get this new technology in the car, and the book is this thick. when i review a car now, it's at least that thick. so is that the gaining factor? do we have to sort of retrain drivers like abs brakes times a thousand to get them behind the wheels of these vehicles or is it incremental? >> just to piggyback on the last

thought, we have to take steps. i just got a new car, and it was this thick, but every page said, see your dvd. so i don't really know how big it is. but there is an education process. i think as an industry we have to make these things intuitive, but i think especially with the next generation buyer, they're not going to need it this thick. first of all, they won't read it. they get it. they grew up in a connected lifestyle. they're not going to need it, they're going to be used to it. as generations go by, i think there's an expectation of connectedness. i think there's an understanding of technology that many of us didn't grow up with, but we've got to start. we've got to start now because we can't just go straight into v-to-v and hope the world is a better place. >> at the same time, you know, it's interesting. you're absolutely right. we have to educate more consumers on the benefits that these technologies represent, but consumers get that fairly quickly. and you know, we just completed another study with consumers in the u.s., with u.s. vehicle

described to them what v-to-x represents and already today 25% of u.s. consumers say i want to get that in my next new vehicle because of the benefits that they even just read about. 25% is a huge number for technology that people haven't even experienced yet. so i think consumers are willing to accept this because a lot of the models are influenced by how they use technology in other aspects of their lives. the cell phones, the tablets we all use, are influencing people with regards to what else technology can do for them. we do have to explain and emphasize what that means in an automotive context, but at the same time consumers are opening up to this. that's one of the fundamental driving forces for adoption and interest because consumers are ready to embrace this. one more step that i want to share with you from that same study that we did. we asked consumers about self-driving cars. again, that's a technology that most of us have not experienced. if you ever get a chance to do that, do it. it's pretty amazing.

there's a 30-second rule i established for myself. the first time you sit in one of those cars, you freak out. what is happening? the steering wheel goes like this, the car drives. after 30 seconds, you're like, it's comfortable, cool. i can imagine what i can do in this car now that it actually drives. i personally had an a-ha moment a year ago, two years ago where i was in a google vehicle where somebody was cutting us off and the car reacted and moved slowly.blq i couldn't have done that, and i love driving. i realized with tears in my eyes that a machine can be better than me. i think a lot of customers would have thatp in that study we did, would want to get self-driving vehicle functionality in the next new vehicle. 38%. >> yeah, andrew, i wanted to hear hilary on the driver issue, too. >> you want to hear her first? >> no, go ahead. >> it's interesting, we need to realize, first of all, that we have the convergence of two very dynamic sets of issues.

one is autonomy. the other is connectivity. the connectivity sets of issues are being driven quite a bit by, you know, the smartphone and consumer electronic devices that we all want to use and stay connected. on the other hand, we have this desire to be autonomous because of what we have seen from the google vehicle. but quite honestly, we have kind of been on a path here of automating generally mechanical functions on the vehicle for several years. but all of a sudden, these two very dynamic sets of issues have accelerated their pace. and they're converging in the same place, on the vehicle. and what has happened is that you have a lot of entities now saying all right, how do i react to that? that isn't my traditional sort of scope. and so now they're challenged

with, okay, how do i deal with the spectrum issue, whether it's fcc and ntsa in terms of providing the bandwidths for dsrc, et cetera, how do i deal with 4g-lte, et cetera, so you have a lot of dynamic issues. the one thing we realize in the automotive industry is whatever we put on that vehicle, we want it to be safe. number one, we want it to be safe. it can't fail. it can't go to the blue screen of death. it's got to operate seamlessly, flawlessly. yet, on the other hand, we want to be responsive to our customers. the ultimate consumer that's going to purchase those features and functions. all of that is possible, but we need to do it in such a way that it's effective and it's affordable and we truly can benefit from it. we don't want to have our technologies legislated or mandated that drive us to a

solution that ultimately won't pan out because we won't survive one failure. we want it to be done right. secondly, the industry needs the opportunity to continue to innovate so we get proven solutions that work and we understand the ramifications. so we're on that pathway, but in the meantime, you know, we got the smartphone, we got the tablets, now we got i-watches and wearable devices. all of those things that present new challenges to us. >> one of the things i would like to offer up, though, is at least in the v-to-v and v-to-i space we're sort of talking about right now, i would argue a lot of the regulatory uncertainty that exists right now is actually stifling innovation on a couple of fronts. as an automaker, probably not going to deploy this technology in our vehicles right now if we don't have certainty around what's going to be the end result with the spectrum

discussion that's under debate right now. it's very different if we're forced to share the spectrum, our technology might look very different than it would if we have certainty that we have that spectrum and it's for our use and only our use. so there's uncertainty there. there's uncertainty about whether nhtsa is going to mandate this technology or encourage this technology or do nothing about this technology. that's a very different proposition for an automaker based on what they decide to do. if it's mandated, okay, it's mandated and we're all. if it's not mandated, we as a company have to make a decision. are we going to deploy it on our own knowing that our toyota vehicles will only communicate with toyota vehicles. hope that the technology stays the way it is so when other car companies come online, our cars are talking to each other. right now, where we're in the space, all of the auto companies are frozen until we have certainty from the fcc, we have certainty from nhtsa about what this landscaping is going to look like going forward.

>> yeah, it strikes me that again in europe, they're sort of looking not vek-to-vek but getting those cell standards so that you have information that's further down the road, what we think of as kind of probe data. but they're not there yet. it also strikes me in talking with all of the automakers, automakers that if two or three decided to do it, that would sort of establish a de facto standard. whatever anybody said after that, you know, in terms of the percentages. i don't know if anybody's willing to do it, but there's a lot of i guess bar talk about that. at any rate, somebody wanted to add something before i ask anything else? no, all right. i should -- there's been underlying talk, scuttlebutt before the show and during the show about who controls the dashboard and what happens when you want to make those connections at the moment.

and a lot of rumors about what companies may try to do in terms of taking over that dashboard. you know whether a certain company with a certain kind of phone is going to make your dashboard look different than it did before. and whether that's really a great idea or not. i mean, it's also there's a blackberry effect, too. why would i do that if i don't even know that phone's going to be here in five years? it may be wickedly popular right now but -- and i don't know how open people want to be about that discussion or how much of that is going on or if that's not just an issue as far as you're concerned here. >> well, i'm not speaking from an automotive perspective, but it's interesting in your point, if you read the steve jobs book, which i encourage you to do because it's enlightening. there's a section in there about his strategy against gates' strategy of an open technology. and in the book, he talksfk abo the one industry that still is ripe for an opportunity to own the entire experience is automotive.

and he's done it in his industry, in the apple industry. but the one remaining industry is automotive where you can control that experience from end to end. and now you've got connected car introducing a lot of content providers and a lot of suppliers. you start opening the door for somebody else, exactly as john described, control the dashboard. so you know, if you believe in his philosophy and look at the success of controlling that eco system from end to end, it's a strong argument, but both models have been successful, so to the last question, john, i think there is going to be a point when somebody gives up the dashboard and yields to somebody that provides a great user interface. my kids ask me about it all the time, why can't you just pop it in and run it on the vehicle. so at some point there will be that case. but i think that would be a conscious strategy to move away from owning that experience end to end. my guesses are it's probably going to be somebody that needs

that brand to lift to do that versus somebody that's at brand parity with one of those providers. but that's just my two cents of the crystal ball. >> i look at this slightly different because i think it's not so much about control. it's about influence that you can have over that dashboard. it's probably not even the dashboard. it's really the customer. maybe the connected driver first and then the customer. that's why the tech companies are interested in the automobile. that's the last remaining puzzle that actually would allow them to interact, have theirax(x ecosystem intact with offer you are including when your mobile sitting in your car, in other words. but i actually think going forward -- and this relates to what kevin said -- maybe not just the auto industry will come to the same level like smartphones and other devices. maybe the car will become actually the coolest device out there. because think about this. at the end of the day, a car still does more than just provide you with information. it actually has a physical mission. it gets you from point a to point b. my smartphone cannot do that.

and i doubt that we will have a feature of that in the next 10 or 20 years. maybe it will, we'll see, but that's the beauty the vehicle has that no other device platform can match, and that's why i honestly believe the auto industry and why this discussion is so important at this point that the automotive industry in two to three generations will produce cars that are so much more innovative, so much more exciting and involving and cooler than anything that consumers have seen, that event wally this whole idea of having these tech companies on top of the car companies trying to figure out how to work with them might actually be turn around. that's obviously a big vision, but i honestly believe that you can do this because the car has so much more real estate where you can put technology this. you have much more of a controlled environment. you know if somebody is driving or sitting in the car. here i can get up with my cell phone and you wouldn't know what i would do next. you have more of a captive audience. that to me is more nasennating than any device platform that i believe the car will become the ultimate mobile device. >> if i can continue dashboard

confessionals here, 9 of the top 20 companies in a recent bcg study -- bcg did an analysis of the most innovative companies in the world. and 9 of the top 20 were autos. autos are spending about $100 billion a year on r & d. overwhelming private investment, not public investment. and that is producing cool cars. i think thilo's got it right on. and i think this is kind of an undervalued understanding in our society that the pace of change really is rapid. at the same time, there was an ihs study out, last week, i think it came out, where they're talking about the pace of the sces, and i think this is really stunning, and it goes to what andrew said about the fleet turnover. they talked about selling 230,000 self-driving cars in the

year 2025 in the world. so we talk about self-driving cars like they're here tomorrow. but 220,000 in a marketplace with about 100 million ten years from now. and 20 years from now, they said 11 million or 12 million units sold. in a larger base. and roughly a quarter of those in the u.s. roughly a quarter of all cars in the u.s. sold in 20 years will be sdcs. on one level this pace of change is slow and gradual. because of the fleet turnover. on another level, it's immediate, and this is the coolness factor of where in today's cars, you can buy a car that is kind of like an sdc because you have lane centering and you've got adjustable82é cre control. and you have functionally an sdc, which is better than an std, but the -- i think i'll leave it there. >> good call. i think. i would like to make one comment

on this, because you know, i thing, first of all, that stat that you just mentioned, that's way too conservative. i think you'll see these technologies deployed much, much faster. and secondly, i think we also see steps of progression to get there. for example, i believe that in probably three years from now, four years from now, you will have cars that are self-aware. as a first step, before they are truly autonomous or self driving. that means they can actually interpret what you do as a driver and what state you are in and look at the surroundings of what happens and put that all together, analyze it and serve you up information, do things automatically for you that will make it easier for you to go through your life. i think the progression of innovation in the automotive space in particular will happen way faster than any of us realize. does that mean ten years from now, people will have self-driving cars or even driverless cars that i can send off to do my shopping and i don't even have to go to the grocery store any more? no, but you'll see steps in between coming close. it goes back to policy.

it's not so much the technology. it's much more a question of how culturally and from a legal perspective we allow these things to happen. there was an interesting discussion today from audi when they talked about their piloted driving and the question came up who is legal for any problems, responsible for any problems that happen from a self-driving car. the answer was right away, the driver. which shows you the legal aspects are probably the biggest hurdle, not the technology. >> and just to make a point on that, too, and i recommend everybody, if i can, to go out and see what bosh is doing out here. the dilemmas of how much control the driver will cede to the technology is totally unknown. i mean, it sounds great. but a number of our members, including delphi here, too, has also been doing a lot of work on this, and the question is, where is joe six-pack, is he willing to pay for it? and then the liabilities that are associated with it. i think the technology is going

to happen very quickly, but i think consumer acceptance to it is still a very big issue that has to be dealt with. >> and as mitch pointed out, if you review some of these cars now, i mean, we do do it, i have to admit. we sit on the highway, it has got lane centering. i know it does. it has adaptive cruise control, i know it does. i take my hands off the wheel. the thing follows the highway. i'm not doing anything. of course, if i hit the next car, it is, of course, my fault, but i think that's why i wonder how much of this will come in those incremental steps, and then it will just be kind of a natural thing for people to move to that. but actually, what you just said reminds me of something else, and that question is, there is some backlash to this whole movement. and that backlash looks at airline pilots and says, wait a second, when we switched all these systems to automated systems and fly by wire, drive by wire, look what's starting to happen. a pilot falls asleep or

something happens in the airplane and all of a sudden we have problems. i don't know how i teach somebody to drive if their car basically had all of these things in it. and would we have to retrain them every week? and is that something that people are looking at now? >> well you know, you can go back and look at where we started with the regulatory side of things, and the industry has a tremendous amount of experience with being regulated on the product, but when it comes to regulating behavior, it's another whole ball game. and i spent myself, i spent like six years on mandatory safety belt use laws. and it took 00s of millions of dollars an concentrated effort of education plus enforcement. today, i'm not sure where that's going to come from. and you are going to have to go through the consumer side of it where the big risk for the manufacturer is you do something or by regulation, you do something that the customer doesn't want. go back to the interlock on saft belts in the '70s for those

people were cutting their safety belts out because the government mandated we had to put them in and you couldn't start your car unless you had your safety belt on. this is the unchartered area with all the financial risk that's associated with that that argues for a more gradual rollout, although i think that the problem is going to be the technology is coming so fast, that companies have a great deal of risk. this is with the suppliers and regulators, to try to get it right the first time with no guarantee. >> well, and again, as i was talking about earlier, you've got this regulatory uncertainty out there as well. we talked ourselves, i would argue over the last couple years, blue in the face about the various policy obstacles and challenges that exist to autonomous vehicles. we know what they are. i mean, we know there's the liability question. we know what these look like. and i think now it's time to turn the conversation to what are the answers to these áa4 obstacles and get the ball rolling so that we can actually start to deploy these technologies, because

until these questions get answered and we know what the framework looks like that we're going to be living under in the future, we're not going to do anything. >> well, that's the other guy's fault if there's an accident. that's easy. >> john, i just wanted to interject a couple points. most of our discussions or comments have been around passenger vehicles. and i just would like to remind all of us, let's not forget about commercial vehicles. i mean, some of those applications may be more straightforward in the sense that commercial vehicles have professional drivers. and they have a very defined route gipping to end.ejicz and it may be a better platform for initially establishing not only connectivity more broadly but also automated operations. so let's not forget about that opportunity. and then the second comment i would like to make is the fact that we're looking at what's

immediately in front of us and saying, all right, you know, how are we going to control this invasion of the center stack in the vehicle? well, i think we need to step back and think about the broader issue, and the broader issue is one of mobility. and some call it e-mobility in the sense of being connected to things, but more broadly as our society becomes more urbanized, we transport ourselves, we transport goods, and it may mean different types of vehicles and platforms which could become a great opportunity for connectivity and autonomy, as we move forward in time, because if you look at what some of the prognosticators are saying, relative to where the future of mobility is headed, we're going to be more urbanized.

certainly, there are sectors on even in the midwest, where the expectation is that by 2025, you know, for example, the band between cleveland, detroit, and chicago as an example, will be more and more urbanized than it is today. and that will mean a different form of mobility, of goods and services and people. and so in that context, if you take the, you know, the blinders off and think about in that future, what does connectivity mean? what does automation mean? >> are you thinking things like, to my way of thinking, i drive a car. i can't imagine letting my vehicle do that. but is that the kind of thing you're thinking of? >> certainly on commercial vehicles. i mean, in europe, they demonstrated road trains. they concluded that project last year. and it was successful.

but with respect to our own personal transportation, i mean, we may be, you know, willing to accept a transport pod that comes to our home, picks us up at some stated time, takes us to our appointments and comes back and picks us up and then goes off, you know, wherever it needs to go. that's a different mode of mobility of transportation, and certainly, our young people, you know, given their declining proclivity to want to drive, would be more receptive to those kinds of things. so we need to think about what that future might mean in terms of what we regard today as transportation. it may be entirely different. while we're focused on dealing with the issues of connectivity, and i'm not trying to minimize them. we still have big issues there, as well as on autonomy. we need to keep looking to the future to say, all right, how is

this going to move from where we are, where we want to be into that future of tomorrow. >> well, i only have a couple more minutes. then we can catch people right after. we can catch some of us right after. yeah, i'd like to let them keep going. okay? in terms of that connectivity, too, part of the expense, the investment, not all cars have what troy calls an embedded modem now. but looking forward it looks like that's exactly what is going to happen. is that part of the waiting to see whether there's a regulation and not wanting to, you know, stretch margins, et cetera, or is that just going to happen quickly in the next couple years anyway? and get that kind of connectivity. >> i definitely believe that we will get the connectivity because consumers are again asking for it. it's actually one of the very few things our car companies are differentiating these days

because most consumers, differentiation on classic traditional automotive engineering-based features isn't that easy to do any more. if you're an enthusiast, you can tell the difference between different suspensions and the engine and responsiveness of acceleration and so on, but for the average consumer it doesn't really matter. we talked about the younger generation that's not interested in cars as much. this is the opportunity for the automotive industry to reignite the fascination that comes along with an automobile. mobility and being mobile used to mean one thing for a generation of people, probably most of us here in the audience. that next generation has a different definition of mobility, and the car has to fulfill that need as well going forward, but there are bigger implications as was pointed out, and to maybe take that further, and what you talked about, this whole idea of urbanization that people come to the city center because they live there and where they work and play and have fun, might actually be influenced by mobility as well. if i have a car that drives

itself, it doesn't matter if i live close to the city. i can live far away and be productive if the car drives itself, right? there are big implications, but the connected vehicle is here to stay. no question about this. i actually anticipate that by the end of this decade, 70% to 80% of all new vehicles will give you the option of being connected in a car, because everybody wants to continue with their digital lifestyle as soon as you get into your vehicle and not stop that, because it's part of our lives. >> coming back to this sort of apple question, but it's also a question about standards, and again, you know, every manufacturer has a different interface in their car. you can touch some, you can't touch others. some work well with voice commands, some are terrible with voice commands. there's a lot over the last five years about some kind of standard. is that just a nonstarter still in the automotive business, or will there be some coalescing

around some kind of, like the guidelines could become mandatory in 2016? >> can i jump on that one since i was chairman of the technical standards board for the society of automotive engineers, i know standards very well. i think the key is that in any standard, any guideline, you don't want to legislate the technology. y you don't want to say this is the way to do it. i think what we have learned that the industry knows how to work towards the key standards that are necessary to enable the introduction of innovation in our industry. i think what we need to do is what we have always done, and that is to collaborate, work together, find out what the real issues are, establish the necessary guidelines and standards that allow us to drive the cost down and at the same time to facilitate innovation. because you get the best solutions when we're able to compete against one another.

and it also allows us to differentiate ourselves based on our brands. so what's necessary in the area of connectivity, is yes, we need some guidelines, ultimately some standards, but that's not something you dictate. that's something that i think we can work towards. we need to work towards, and get some of those fundamental foundational elements established. and that will help us move forward a bit more faster. >> and i think you have to differentiate between safety applications and connectivity that are just for fun. if you're talking about where the screen is or how long you're going to adjust the dial or how you work voice and gestures, i think guidelines make a lot of sense, performance-based guidelines are the way to go. >> i wonder about navigation. suppose all the nav systems had to react within two seconds or something like that. that would be great for us. but you know, it doesn't happen. is something like that going to happen?

>> just as a reminder, too, for those of you who don't follow the industry as closely as we do, in all of our lobbying, we say tell us what it is that you want us to do. don't give us a design standard. don't tell us how to do it. tell us what you want us to get accomplished. that then creates that flexibility and competition that becomes so important. the other thing is that the planning process on your new vehicle runs in a good year, three years, four years out in to the future, too. the other thing is as we talk about this, we always leak to say if it's a regulation, a, we know what the regulation requires us to do. it gives us the lead time that we can phase it in over product cycles and over production cycles. and then finally, that we have the flexibility to compete with each other, to accomplish the objective. >> i just add to that. regs, when they're predictable

and they're stable, they serve a purpose. i wouldn't want anything we say to be interpreted at anti-regulation. all that said, regulations do take two to three years to produce, and the rate of innovation is faster than that, so if we want nimble, coherent policy that makes sense, it does need to be guideline based and it needs to be multi-sector based. it ought to be the carriers and the software designers and everybody else together with the automotives to do stuff that makes sense for consumers. >> how long start to finish before it was mandatory take for example? >> by the time -- mike was around when that happened. by the time they imposed regulation, it was basically done in the marketplace. >> it was already accomplished before the regulation came into effect. >> but remember, creation of the technology started years before. and so there was a lot of

learning that occurred before you get to that regulation and get to that standard. so you still need to anticipate that. the other factor is we are no longer a nationally based industry. we are an international global industry. so all of the oems and suppliers are global organizations. so one thing we cannot afford, the consumer cannot afford, is having different standards, different guidelines, different regions of the world. that only serves to add cost. we want this to be affordable. we also -- it also will add complexity, which means you have to have more complex designs, which can add some challenging issues. and so while we're focused towards north america, we need to do the same thing on a global basis to assure we have a set of guidelines and standards that work consistently across the

globe. >> you look like you want to say something on top of that? >> no, i'm fine. >> you know, two other issues, we just have a few more minutes that i wanted to touch on. hilary mentioned enforcement. right, i remember seat belts and i still drive with people that do not want to put them on, believe it or not, so that still happens, but the texting one is the most obvious one. there's a $150 fine, i am walking down the street in manhattan, i can count people going by me that are texting while they're driving, of every age. it's not a jenational thing at all. is that something that's ever going to really help us? it doesn't matter what we do enforcement wise, it has to be control the driver, restrict them from doing certain things? >> this is a perfect example of what people want to do in a car. they want to still be able to communicate with other people. right? in my eyes, we have to figure out a solution that would allow you to do something like this in

a safe manner. saying you can't do it period isn't going to cut it for most consumers. then unfortunately, they have to violate any of these laws and put other people into danger. when we do studies with consumers to help us predict what's going to happen in the future, we know in the u.s., 89% of all vehicle owners are concerned about distracted drivers from using the internet in the car or being on the phone. yet 57% want to use mobile applications when they're driving on their phone, as long as it's safe. and everybody has a different definition of what that means. that's the problem. that's again where technology plays a big role. the guideline, the laws have to say you can't do what you typically do when you're inside the vehicle. how we get there, came up earlier, that's where the innovation sets in. i want the car to be smart enough to differentiate between my driving on the highway and texting versus at a stoplight, where i can do all kinds of but the law says no, it's either/or. that kind of black and white mentality just doesn't work in this context. that's where innovation needs to

set in. maybe the car can send out text messages automatically or machine tweets so i don't have to do anything like this. that's interpretation of innovation in the vehicle environment. >> anybody else want to -- >> i just think that this goes back to the behavior issue we talked about earlier, and i think technology is going to have to solve the issue. you look at the young people today, they're constantly in connection, they want to be connected. they're not going to draw differentiation between driving down the highway at 60 miles per hour or stopped at a light. and then you get to the whole enforcement issue. many of the laws that have -- secondary enforcement, means the police can't stop you for texting, even if the policeman pulls up side by side and you look over and sure enough, they're texting. they can't do anything. that's a real enforcement issue and it also says where is it on the criteria of importance to the policeman? and it is really down there low. i think technology is going to

solve it. i think it's wonderful that the technology is moving so quickly and we have all this connectivity and everybody really enjoys it, but now we got to make sure that the technology takes care of it. plus, you know, education and responsibility for individual users, but i don't think that's where the solution is going to be in the long run. >> and i pose with where i started, texting is a perfect metaphor for failure of government, not because they're not trying, but the rate of innovation. so the knit is guidelines don't deal with texting. they deal with visual/manual and the whole integrated system. the issue is texting which is not addressed. the second point that relates to that is how do you deal with it. you get the stakeholders in the room, what david suggested in the very beginning, instead of talking about doing that, go and do it and find ways to use technology to combat a problem. but we can't go through an exercise in prohibition that's going to fail.

we have to find a way to channel it so it is done safely. >> that would be getting everybody in all of the different halls you're going to see together to coordinate tablets, iphones, cars, everything. but it's gradually sort of coming together. i wanted to wrap things up. i want to thank you folks very much today for the panel discussion. i think it was really helpful. i think it is always helpful because it is getting toward a pretty common goal. want to thank everybody for coming today and ces still has a lot more days left in it. thanks very much. [ applause ] special presentation of the 20e 14 new york ideas festival. i includes the starters of

kickstarter, chobani yogurt and gabby giffords. you'll hear about new efforts to cure cancer. the discussion of the origins of the universe and the future of finance. that's tonight starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span3. >> our campaign 2014 debate coverage continues. tonight at 8:00 on c-span, live coverage of the minnesota governor's debate between incumbent governor democrat mark dayton, republican candidate jeff johnson and independence party candidate hannah nicollet. thursday night live coverage of the oklahoma governor's debate between joe dorman and governor mary fallin. also thursday on c-span2, the nebraska governor's debate and saturday night on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the debate between john lewis