go to another sector where they actually told me that at one point the free market across on the u.s. side had all but dried up and the area where they put fencing up and the flow had all but stopped, now it was a thriving shopping center once again. so it works on multiple levels, not just on the flow and our ability to do our job but it also has other aspects. so, yes, do we need more fencing. yes. >> do we need it everywhere? no. is it the sole answer? no. it's part of an overall multilayered strategy. >> and the deputy chief mentioned that. so i hope you work with this committee as we move forward to identify where we need additional fencing, how it should be designed, how do you have to roads in between the

fencing so we can literally relieve the pressure from standpoint staffing. i guess -- i'll continue then. i want to go back to incentives. okay, he's back, i'll let you go. time's short. >> thanks so much. i have a couple of questions for the record. i'm going ask for each of you, not now, about leadership and what led you to follow this path and how we can encourage more women to follow the path you've set out on. if i could get a yes or no question. i think one of the questions was asked about fencing. sure, we need that. we want to make sure it's done thoughtfully in ways that we can contribute. you may have mentioned, chief morgan, i think somebody mentioned san diego, use of

walls there, you were able to take 100 border patrol officers who otherwise would be doing that and deploy them in other ways. that's smart. but what would also be smart is all these border patrol agents that are taking care of these kids, like a day care operator, that ain't smart and one of the ways to reduce the need for doing that is for us to do our part to help making sure that all these little kids and their bigger brothers and sisters have a future in honduras, guatemala and el salvador. that's part of the solution as well. i think immigration reform is part of the solution, including the ability for workers in honduras, guatemala, el salvador to work here, go home unimpeded and come back from time to time. that's part of it. technology is part of it. we talked about the spotters on top of the hill. the idea of setting up unpiloted vehicles to be able to fly up there, identify these guys, if we want to bring in some kind of a direct fire on those you can

use that kind of technology, whatever, you know, figure out what works and do more of that. part of what we're asking you to do is tell us what you need more of and less of. i would hope at the end of the day that it includes the other side of the equation and the lesson we learned from mexico. we used to have tons of people coming up here from mexico. tons of them. most of the folks who came here for years where from mexico. they don't come anymore. they're more going back into mexico, there's a reason for that and the reason for that is frankly they have a future now. they have hope, they have a solid middle-class and we have been, i think, helpful in helping them ensure that happens to ways that benefit them and i think us as well. does what i've said make any sense? if you say no, i'm not -- i'll leave. >> everything you said makes sense, sir. >> chief deputy? >> i concur with you. >> thanks, i want to conclude if i can. thank you both for being here. i said to the chairman you're a breath of fresh air, we appreciate your leadership and

the way you approach in. as as the chairman mentioned this is i think probably the last hearing where i will be the ranking member just to say how much i've enjoyed working with him and all of our colleagues. it's been a joy. i won't get off the committee. i'll still be the senior democrat, but i'll be the ranking member on environment and public works and i look forward to being active in supporting my colleagues in this committee but i want to acknowledge the help of certainly our minority staff and led by john killington but i also want to acknowledge the hard work of the chairman and the folks he himself lead. i can't mention them all but i want to thank each about my staff and our staff and his staff for the way they work together, still working together even as we gather here today, still working together to get things done before we adjourn. i particularly want to thank chris dixon, i want to thank gabby --

>> just gabby. >> good. gabby. patrick bailey, i want to thank david lucky who's left. brook erickson and all the other folks on the chairman staff who contributed in this congress and for our country. and finally i want to thank laura, the best third baseman i've seen on the congressional softball team in all the years i've been here. she's gotten a arm like a rifle and as long as she's on our team we're in good shape. but our chief clerk and her team, they keep our committee running smoothly and efficiently. it's been a joy. a real joy. i think we've done good work together and look forward to doing a whole lot more. thank you. >> thanks, senator carper. it would be nice if everybody had nice simple names to pronounce like carper. but i want to thank both of our witnesses for your really many years of service to this nation, it's truly appreciated.

your thoughtful testimony, your thoughtful answers to our questions and truly look forward to working with you in the next congress and few years. that being said, the hearing record will remain open until december 15 at 5:00 p.m. this hearing is adjourned. [ indistinct conversation ]

[ indistinct conversation ]

[ indistinct conversation ] [ indistinct conversation ]

[ indistinct conversation ] [ indistinct conversation ]

[ indistinct conversation ] [ indistinct conversation ]

[ indistinct conversation ] >> this weekend, c-span's cities

tour, along with our cox communications cable partners will explore the literary life and history of scottsdale, arizona, nicknamed the west's most western town. on book tv on c-span 2 hear about life on route 66 known as america's mother road, is route 66 was one of the origin tal u. highways between illinois and southern california. in his book "the '66 kid, raised on the mother road" author bob bose bell recalls his life in kingman, arizona, which is located on route 66 and the many things he observed while helping his father run a gas station. >> about ten years ago i got a call from a writer and he said i read about your article on your father's gas station in arizona highways and i'd like to interview you. i said sure and he goes -- his first question, the very first thing he asks me is "what was it like growing up in such a historic visit guidon books wh

specializes in civil war history and americana. >> my father was a custer collector, my mother loved the civil war but was enamored with the women in the west so i'm sure they came up with guidon books, it fits both military. >> and on american mystery ist n c-span 3, hear about the founding of scottsdale from the arizona state historian marshall trimble. he shares the story of winfield scott, a civil war hero who saw potential in the arizona salt river valley. >> he'd just graduated from seminary school and was assigned to a church when the civil war broke out and lincoln called for volunteers and he really wanted to get into it so he went back to his hometown in new york, a little tiny town, and he started recruiting and raising his own company of soldiers and i think he recruited about 33 of his own

cousins and his bible study class and he even recruited the town band. >> and we'll visit the winter home of architect frank lloyd wright. >> really example of how to live in the desert southwest. it was a building that frank lloyd wright used as a laboratory. wright was really working to create a new kind of architecture for america. >> the c-span cities tour, saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span 3. working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. every weekend, book tv brings you 48 hours of non-fiction boox aks and author. saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern, georgetown university proe professor jason brennan looks at the failure of democratic

systems to provide the best outcomes and calls for a change on how governments run in his book "against democracy." he's interviewed by david bose, vice president of the cato institute. >> fairness doesn't get you to democracy. so wis it people reject that system? because they think it will lead to bad outcomes and they're probably right so once you say that "i care about fairness and bad outcomes" then you're on my side and you have to start asking, okay, how are you going to weigh fairness versus the quality of the outcome. >> on sunday, the before columbus foundation presents the 37th annual american book awards which recognizes outstanding literary achievement from the entire spectrum of america's diverse literary community. the awards are presented at the sf jazz center in san francisco. then at 5:00 p.m. eastern, jonathan zimmerman, professor of history of education at the university of pennsylvania who argues free speech is under threat on college campuses across the country in his book

"campus politics, what everyone needs to know." >> the problem is the second kind of pc that doesn't taboo words which add nothing to our discussion but taboos ideas, right? if 40% of the faculty is opposed to race affirmative action, race-based affirmative action and we're not hearing from them, that means there's a serious pc problem. >> go to booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. >> we'll go live to the hudson institute for a discussion on fifth generation mobile networks, also called 5g that would allow faster broadband to more people at the same time than the current 4g. at h t hudson institute, we'll hear from the assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information. we're expecting him to outline the federal government's efforts to increase spectrum viability for wireless broadband.

>> good afternoon. my name is harold roth and i'm very pleased to welcome you here to the hudson institute and the center for the economics of the internet. we're very pleased today to be discussing 5g requireless and the future of that and the federal government's role with it. we're very honored to have speaking with us today the honorable lawrence strikling. i call him larry. larry has the longest title of anyone in the federal government. he is the assistant secretary for communications and information department of commerce and administrator national telecommunications and information administration. and if anyone can say that in one breath, they're doing very well. i hope you read larry's bio.

it's on the back of the summary here. i'm going to give you my personal bio about larry. i first met larry at the hudson institute in indianapolis, indian indiana. larry had a very important position as something like deputy general counsel of a very major company and he gave a lot of very thoughtful comments at hudson that day. he looked like he was about 20 and a couple years later we met again when he became the common carrier bureau chief at the fcc.

i learned a lot. i always came out of the meeting feeling if i'd learned a lot, which i had. and he has gone on to bigger and better things. and for the past eight years, i don't know that there are many folks in government who have had your tenure and just a great string of successes at ntia. we're very honored to have you here with us today and look forward to your comments. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> well, thank you, harold for that personal introduction. i'd forgotten about that event but you're right, that was quite some time ago but i want to thank you for hosting the event today and thank the hudson institute for allowing us to use this nice new facility. and, harold, i'd like to especially thank you for your work on the commerce spectrum

management advisory committee and for your contributions on spectrum policy over the past several years. i think you are finishing up, what, about seven or eight years with them and so you've been there about as long as i've been at ntia, so thank you for your participation and contributions to that. it's been important as we figure out how to solve the important spectrum challenges we face in this country. so our focus will be on spectrum policy but i think we ought to explore in the the larger context of technology policy and i think it's fair to say that the obama administration has been as engaged or more engaged on technology policy than any of its predecessors. this is not just because president obama has a personal interest in technology which, of course, he does but rather reflects the recognition that the competitiveness of our country depends on having sound

technology policies that support investment and innovation. when the president was first elected in 2008, e-commerce made up nearly 4% of u.s. retail sales. today that number has increased 50% at least, up to 6%. in 2014, the united states exported roughly $400 billion in information and communications technology-enabled services. that accounted for more than half of u.s. services exports. and i think we see today that virtually all industry sectors from manufacturing to agriculture to financial services have benefited from the adoption of digital technologies, applications and services and i think today tech policy is now intrinsically and irrevocably linked to our country's overall economic prosperity. at the department we've done a lot of work in the last four years under secretary pritzker's leadership on what we've called

digital economy work and i think the one conclusion we're reaching is we approach the end of our term here is that the digital economy is the economy. there's really no difference any longer. at ntia we focused on spending the last eight years of the key building blocks that support the digital economy. we've developed and managed the block grants which added over 117,000 miles of fiber in unserved and underserved areas across the country. we've convened multistakeholder processes to address key cyber security and privacy challenges and worked to ensure the free flow of data across borders. and we have provided by key support to the commerce department's digital economy board of adviser which is has been examining ways to advance economic growth and opportunity in the digital age. just yet, this panel of private sector experts delivered its first set of recommendations identifying key actions the

department can take to support the digital economy and encourage growth and increasing opportunity today, though, i will focus on an important driver of our digital infrastructure, wireless connectivity. we've seen phenomenal growth in the use of wireless gadgets in the last decade, from smartphones to tablets to electronic fitness trackers. in 2011, only 27% of americans reported using a smartphone. in years that number has doubled and the number of americans using multiple wireless devices have increased dramatically. but these statistics tell only part of the story of the past eight years. ctia reports the amount of data traveling across u.s. wireless networks skyrocketed from approximate lly 191 billion megabytes in 2009 to more than 10 trillion megabytes in 2016

all of this, of course, is before we looked to see the beginning of 5g. so continued growth and innovation in this wireless sector will hinge in large part of the introduction to 5g networks and our ability to deliver the spectrum needed to power this and other next generation technologies. this administration recognized the spectrum challenge from the start and we understood it to be a complicated problem because we needed to meet the growing spectrum needs not just of the commercial sector but also of government agencies and so to address this challenge, the president tasked ntia in 2010 to work with the fcc to make 500 megahertz of additional federal and non-federal spectrum available for wireless broadband within ten years while also ensuring that federal agencies could meet their spectrum-driven missions so to meet the president's goal we partnered with the fcc and the relevant federal agencies to develop a

ten-year plan to achieve or exceed the target. we established a fast-track process to examine the most promising bands on an expedited basis and under that we identified 115 megahertz of spectrum that could be made available for wireless broadband within five years and this included bands that became part of the very successful aws-3 auction and the fcc's proceeding to establish the citizens broadband radio service in the 3.5 gigahertz band. and as we sit here today, assuming a successful outcome of the fcc's current incentive auction for the tv spectrum, we will have made more than 300 megahertz of spectrum available for wirele lesless broadband wie in the pipeline. but just to show that the challenge is a persistent one, the goalposts keep moving. in 2015, congress passed the spectrum pipeline act and added 130 megahertz to the president's original 500 megahertz target.

from the outside it was clear to us that in repurposing spectrum the old method of clearing spectrum of federal users and then making it available for the exclusive use of commercial providers was no longer sustainable. we had moved the easy systems and to continue the old method of spectrum reallocation was going to cost too much money and take too long. the industry and its customers as well as our economy simply could not afford the cost and delay and over the years the critical missions performed by federal agencies required systems of greater and greater complexity and increased their needs for spectrum. so the opportunities to find spectrum to which to relocate federal operations were dwindling rapidly. so given this landscape and considering improvements in technology, we quickly realized we needed to focus on increasing spectrum sharing between federal and non-federal users.

and while federal agencies have been sharing spectrum for many years, the commercial sector was not as familiar or commercial with this approach. so while we knew it would take time to persuade most stakeholders that spectrum sharing was the right approach, it really was and is the only feasible path forward. working collaboratively with the white house, the fcc and federal agencies and industry, ntia led this fundamental shift in how we approach spectrum management. our work to promote and advance spectrum sharing among all users is the key to unlocking the unlimited possibilities for future spectrum use, including 5g. we've been assisted greatly in this effort by our interagency policy and plans steering group, the commerce spectrum management advisory committee made up of industry experts and the president's council of advisers on science and technology, so-called pcas. in 2012 in a pivotal report,

pcas concluded spectrum sharing offered a vital path forward to meeting the nation's growing demand for additional spectrum for wireless technologies and building on his 2010 memorandum, president obama in 2013 recognized that spectrum sharing not only would be necessary to achieve his original 500 megahertz goal, its expansion and evolution was essential to the future of spectrum management. so we began to develop a much greater environmental collaboration between industry and the federal government as well as among federal agencies because for sharing to succeed we needed greater buy in from federal agencies as well as more certainty around what they were being asked to do. and this was particularly essential in our work on aws-3. in identifying the federal bands that would become part of the a ws 3 auction which i think folks remember generated more than $40 billion, government and industry representatives collaborated in

working groups under the leadership of our c-smack to steady and assess how they could share spectrum in the 1755 to 1708 megahertz band. more than 15 different agencies offering more than 10 different types of services shared this 25 megahertz segment for a range of activities including precision-guided munitions, law enforcement video surveillance applications and satellite operation operations. we were able to develop transition plans to move most of these federal systems out of the band over a ten-year period and this would not have happened without two key elements -- the government, industry collaboration, and the work on spectrum sharing because during the ten-year transition and even beyond, sharing will continue around key sites across the

country. importantly, the aws-3 process resulted in the planned relocation of certain military systems to the 2025, 2021 band used by broadcasters who will now share it with these military systems so we learned a lot from the aws experience and we're applying those learnings to our current and future efforts. what became clear to us as a result of the aws-3 work was that we needed an enduring process that can produce and evaluate a steady pipeline of spectrum to meet the increasing needs of federal and commercial users. we also realized we needed a more permanent process to identify and prioritize bands for repurposing opportunities. we needed to be more transparent by improving the availability and quality of data around federal and non-federal spectrum use. so we developed ntia spectrum compendium to provide the public with detailed reports describing

federal spectrum uses in the 225 megahertz, the five gigahertz bands and this tool offers stakeholders a way to evaluate whether to pursue and ultimately propose sharing solutions. we're now in the process of expanding the range of bands included in the compendium which will be particularly useful as we consider new sharing opportunities in higher bands. meanwhile, last month we released a report on the quantitative assessment of spectrum usage which examined five bands totaling 960 me 6 60 megahertz of spectrum to see which might be good candidates of sharing. the analysis is that some might be possible in portions of some of these bands and gives us a road map for the more detailed study that will be necessary before we recommend a band for repurposing. we also know that research and experimentation will be key to

helping us determine whether to repurpose spectrum, we are expanding the capabilities of our institute for telecommunications sciences in boulder, colorado, to perform the technical work to expand sharing including monitoring and measurements and improved propagation modeling. a key asset of its is working with both federal and commercial stakeholders to provide scientifically sound data. as we examine whether a band can be repurposed, we take into account a number of considerations. we must first fully understand how federal agencies are using the band to meet their missions. we also need to consider the suitability of particular bands for non-federal use, including whether there are sinner geez with other current or pending allocation and we also must evaluate the international considerations such as relevant intergovernmental agreements regarding global spectrum

allocations. but in all cases our objective remains the same, we want to employ a detailed, rigorous set of analyses that involve all affected stakeholders to generate sound fact-based spectrum policy decisions. in some cases, we are able to reach a conclusion that spectrum can be repurposed but in others, the science and the reality of current uses may lead us to a different conclusion. for example, the framework developed by ntia, the fcc and the department for shared use of the 3.5 gigahertz band offers a particularly promising road map for future efforts. in this case, we needed to overcome the challenge of introduce commercial broadband systems into a band used for military radars. we knew that the intermittent nature of the radar use offered an opportunity for commercial operations but the challenge we faced was figuring out how to avoid drawing extremely large exclusion zones to protect that

intermittent use by the federal radars. we knew that doing so would limit the ability of commercial providers to fully utilize the band. so ntia engineers took an initial critical step by collaborating with the department and the fcc on ground breaking analysis and modeling techniques that resulted in significantly reduced geographic exclusion zones. but the overall approach to sharing in this band will go much further, incorporating the innovative use of spectrum access databases and technologies that sense wireless devices in the band to enable an increasingly dynamic sharing environment. in addition, the fcc's three-tiered access and licensing model creates a framework that maximizes the use of the band by incumbents and different classes of new users. despite the complexity of the framework, government and industry stakeholders are making great strides as we work to put this valuable spectrum to use to

increase the capacity of broadband wireless connections and ultimately to support 5g services. most recently, our collaboration with the fcc and its spectrum frontiers proceeding made available approximately 11 gigahertz of spectrum in the millimeter wave range, much of it shared. this will enable innovative new services that feature the high capacity and low latency characteristics that are the emerging hallmarks of 5g. these very high bands open up new opportunities for spectrum sharlg, unlicensed and licensed spectrum use and dual-use technologies to enable not only new commercial services but also to satisfy critical government requirements. we've also been examining whether we can meet industry's request for expanded unlicensed access in the five gigahertz band for wi-fi and other uses. for the 5.3 gigahertz band we had to evaluate whether unlicensed devices could operate without degrading the

performance of critical federal radars. unfortunately, the methodical analysis we conducted in collaboration with federal agencies, the fcc, and the industry led us to conclude that there is no feasible path forward today to share this band. but those who have been following our efforts in this band likely are not surprised by this development. as stakeholders on all sides have known for some time that we had high hurdles toover come. but while this may be a setback in terms of this particular band, i think it shows our process is rigorous in that it works. it's fundamental that all stakeholders have trust and confidence that we will run a fair and objective process and over the long run i'm confident this type of process will result in increased commercial access to spectrum. at the same time, we have been testing potential approaches to sharing the upper 5 gigahertz

band for vehicle-to-vehicle safety communications and unlicensed uses such as wi-fi. ntia is working collaboratively with the fcc, the department of transportation and industry stakeholders on this important band. overall, we have worked to ensure that we are positioned to respond to the growing commercial demand and an evolving market and that this should guide future activity rapid advances in technology including quickly developing 5g in particular and continuously evolving business models means a number of our previous assumptions about spectrum have become outdaded. for example, the commercial mobile industry for many years called for significantly more access to spectrum in the lower bands below 3 gigahertz. the so-called beach front spectrum was desirable because it allowed wireless to travel long distance and penetrate building walls but as devices

have become more capable, mobile networks need to evolve to support high bandwidth, high volume applications such as next generation video delivery, virtual reality and automation and the very wide blocks of spectrum required for these services simply aren't available in the lower bands so we've opened up mid--band spectrum in recent years and now recent improvements in technology are allowing industry to make use of the much higher frequencies in the millimeter wave range that only a few years ago were not widely considered suitable for mobile broadband over the years there's been discussion about creating incentives for agencies to make more available for commercial use. the most effective incentive for agencies is to provide them the necessary resources they need to research alternatives to their existing uses and then to give them the resources to upgrade to more efficient technologies. a key pool in this regard is the

spectrum relocation fund. we've worked with the white house and congress to expand the authorized uses of the fund, to enable agencies to conduct research and related activities that promise to increase spectrum efficiency. the fund was first established in 2004 to reimburse federal agencies for the costs associated with repurposing spectrum identified for auction by the fcc. congress made important and needed changes to the fund as part of the 2015 spectrum pipeline act to broaden the scope of eligible expenses covered under the fund and these efforts are beginning to bear fruit as federal agencies are developing plans for submission to a technical panel made up of representatives from ntia, the fcc, and the white house's office of management and budget for approval. and prior to the end of this administration i anticipate the transmittal of plans to congress that utilize this new authority

for the first time, giving federal agencies the opportunity and incentive to explore new bands while protecting mission-critical functions. as an example, the federal aviation administration, in partnership with the department, the department of homeland security and noaa will be assessing the possibility of consolidating various radar capabilities that could result in making some portion of the 1300/1350 band available for shared use. noaa is also submitting a proposal to study the potential of shared access to 1675/1680 megahertz band used for weather satellite services. while we believe apgtsys are making good faith efforts to meet the challenges, we know there is still more we can do to make the most effective use of federal spectrum i do believe the additional flexibility congress authorized for the spectrum relocation fund was the single most important step that could be taken in the short term

but perhaps the fund could be further strength strengthened in the future with additional funding and flexibilities, for example by supporting research into allowing more unlicensed use in federal bands. we are not convinced that other incentive proposals put forward offer approaches likely to be successful. these proposals generally rely on market-based incentives but federal agencies are simply unable to respond to market-based incentives the same way as commercial spectrum users. agencies are driven by mission requirements not profit and they are subject to budget and statutory requirements and in this mission-based context, agencies don't have the tools to assess economic efficiency. moreover, for an incentive to be effective it must influence the appropriate decision makers at the right time but we are continuing to explore potential mechanisms that might be effective and ultimately we hope to make enough progress that we can bring concepts forward and

begin a dialogue with federal agencies and other stakeholders. the evolution to 5g and the expansion of the internet of things brings with them a whole new set of challenges to providing a steady stream of spectrum for a wide range of uses and applications. we're just starting to explore the spectrum policy implications of the emergence of new technologies such as drones, connected cars and the vast array of internet of things connected devices. we estimate that the number of connected iot devices will double from 15 billion in 2015 to more than 30 billion by 2020 and the faa estimates that sales of drones for personal and commercial use could increase from 2.5 million this year to as high as 7 million by 2020. 5g is expected to enable very high speed mobile broadband but if you were a precision

manufacturer, maybe redundancy and reliability are a higher priority for you than speed or if you are a surgeon performing an operation on a patient in a remote location, you might need low latency in your mobile connection to avoid any delay. the aim of the technology and associated 5g standards is to allow for that and numerous examples from connected vehicles to very smart city applications will have their own unique requirements. lte, the latest wireless standard, ushered in advances in technologies that allow mobile operators to mix and match those various spectrum holdings as needed while also off loading some of their demand on to wi-fi. this approach was supported by advances in network technology such as small cells, distributed antenna systems and other innovations. 5g will incorporate these capabilities and more. in addition to supporting current spectrum bands it will include deployments in high bands such as in the millimeter

wave range above 24 gigahertz, frequencies being made available through the fcc's spectrum frontiers proceeding. as we prepare for the innovations that 5g will bring, we need to understand growth in the demand for spectrum is not limited to commercial and consumer use just as innovations in technology have driven growth in the commercial wireless market, government agencies are finding new and better ways to more effectively deliver on their critical missions. spectrum makes it possible for soldiers to communicate with their commanders on the battlefield and from remote locations. it helps first responders react quickly and safely in times of emergency. it ensures that nasa spacecraft can transmit important data back to earth. it enables noaa satellites to accurately track the weather so that communities can better prepare for storms. as i conclude, let me leave you with some final thoughts about what we've learned over the last

eight years as well as some issues that i believe need some additional attention in the immediate and near term if we are to ensure that 5g and all spectrum-based technologies reach their true potential. first, there's no longer any question that spectrum sharing has to be a major part of the solution and the only way sharing will work is by maintaining and even extending collaborative and cooperative processes and relationships that bring all affected stakeholders together. second, as the airwaves become more congested, we need to develop and enforce minimal technical rules to protect against unauthorized harmful interference. automated enforcement approaches make a lot of sense but will require increased investment to develop interference analysis tools. i also believe we are going to have to finally address the performance characteristics as spectrum receivers otherwise you can limit the ability to effectively use all available spectrum and we must take

advantage of new opportunities such as 5g to build enforcement tools into the technology. third, as a nation and really even as a global spectrum community we must continue to invest in research and development of technologies that will help us make the most effective and efficient use of spectrum. there are pieces in place from expanded use of the spectrum low rotation fund, to the wireless spectrum r&d con sword yum sort hope collectively we will be able to do even more. fourth, i would like to see additional focus to more accurately quantify current spectrum demand, usage and projections of future requirements for federal and non-federal use. technologies and business models change rapidly and to ensure that we keep up with these changes, we must focus on actual needs. wireless operators appear to be concentrating on expanding capacity in a localized fashion to address the most congested

part of their networks so how will we ensure more areas get covered by the latest technologies and dead zones are minimized. how granular does coverage need to be for the emerging 5g applications and for iot specifically? how important is reliability in an iot environment? these are all questions that need to be considered and answered in weighing future spectrum policy decisions. so i am proud of the collaborative effort ntia has established in the late -- last eight years and the strides we have made in creating and enduring spectrum pipeline that is going to support the evolution to 5g. we have set the stage for a new era of substantially increased dynamic spectrum sharing and innovating with our technical and policy tools, ntia is well-positioned to meet the increasing and evolving spectrum demands of federal and non-federal users. so while my time at ntia is

coming to a close in a few weeks i am confident that we have the structure and team in place to build on our success and ensure that the united states remains a global leader in wireless innovation. thank you for listening. [ applause ] >> that was great, larry. >> do you want me to sit down or stand up? >> it's up to you. maybe sit down. why don't we do that? when i look back at your many accomplishments over the past eight years and with the full information of hindsight and i think about what is the -- one of the factors that strikes me as the most improbable, if you

had asked me eight years ago and told me how technology was going to play out, how policy was going to play out. one thing that ntia has done has been to get other federal agencies to relinquish spectrum. not just little bands, but lots of spectrum. and -- could you tell us a little bit about that? how you approached that and what i assume were some very difficult conversations in other parts of the government? >> i think that's something of a misconception people have, the idea that federal agencies dig in and are unwilling to cooperate in these areas. of course it helps that you have a president issuing a directive to the agencies in terms of the original 500 megahertz order but my experience with the federal

agencies has been that they respect the needs, they want to make sure that their needs are addressed and i do think that in the last eight years years they have done a good job of making sure that the agency needs are brought into the discussions, and i think that they respect sound, neutral and fact basis analysis. that again is something that we have focused on in last eight years. in that sort of environment where we know the you issues are going to be exposed and eel val evaluated, and i have found the federal agencies to be partners in this. >> said like a true diplomat. it's wondererful. in the summary what jumped out to me was the need of particular standards. could you elaborate a little bit

more on that? >> well, this emerged in one or two very enlarge matters in the last eight years where the fact that we are not looking at the impact and receivers are having was perhaps restricting what would otherwise will authorized and uses by the people that had it assigned to them. given the fact that we're having to put more services in next to each other, and we're having to put services in adjacent bands the each other, that we're going to have to confront and make sure that they're not causing still over to the fans where they don't have any legal or authorized right to be here and in a way to continue to take full advantage of the spectrum that we have available to us.

in your talk you talked about the great success and you also suggested that market and incentives probably don't work well with agencies to encourage them to forgive the spectrum. one of the limitations of course in the spectrum is that it captures what i would call actual transaction cost that an agency might occur. it does not capture the opportunity cost that the agency and is not in otherwise and it is the future so bleak in terms of getting the government agencies to take into account. is there any ray of hope given the successes that you actually

have had with agencies and developing the plan? >> well, i think you have and what we have been trying to do for the last few year, and i don't know when we will get the work completed and that's trying to put ourself in the shoes of the people in federal agencies that are trying to make these decisions about how the spectrums use. first off the spectrum for them is a tool to perform the mission. their mission is to keep the soldiers safe on the battlefield and determine what the weather is going to be tomorrow or next week. for them the spem trum is the tool. what is important to them is that they perform the missions and in the life or death that they perform it in a way to, you know, meet the critical needs that they have. having said that, agencies like to know that they're using the most modern and best

technologies. they're certainly upgrades and then they're up against the budget challenges that they have and then going to be given the resources for the up p grade. that's balance against the fact that when you're performing a mission, there's always going to be a tendency to rely on what is te tested. i do think that the spectrum relocation fund and providing the resources that's going to allow for the kind of upgrades that the agencies have and to make the officers and that's the long term hope for the future. some of the other idea social security giving the agencies some ownership and spectrum to allow them to get paid to give up the spectrum. i just don't see them fundamentally dealing with the spectrum choices when they're making them in the mission and plus they will lead to the results in the sense that today

federal agencies have no ownership or priority interest in the spectrum that they're used. they're assigned a right to use it and that's taken away from it when they're not using it. it's a property right in the agency and first off it might lead to hording and that does not exist today. they have an incentive to gather as much as they could in order to be paid off for it in the future. but it does not get it the fundamental issue and that's making sure that they're using the most modern technology that they can and have the resources to upgrade when it's available to them. >> that's great. i could go afternoon with questions, but that's not fair. please identify yourself before asking the question.

i have a question and as we go do other things and improving the yutly case of the available spectrum. so that's a question for the panel. >> i was not aware f that but we absolutely just because of the internet numbering resources we need ip b 6.

>> hi, doug with it if. thanks again and this is a great speech. do you see more policy issues needed or more resources for the enforcement period? just the thoughts? >> i mean the threshold question that's probably prevented and meeting the need and that's identified for years. i mean i think dale when he was a teenage aer was talking about the need for a stronger enforcement in this area. part of it is the what has been up until now the difficult and agreeing on what actually is harmful interference that was justified in the action.

i think it's just become clear that putting more and more systems next to each other and we have to have a process and if you have the rights, you know that they're protected and guaranteed to you. and i think for the details gain, that's a great question for the next panel. i don't want to take all of their thunder. >> great question to the back and then it's a hundred years old and you look at the

important communication and the most important ones are in code. recently like this morning i hear that the joint chiefs e-mails have wound up at some university out west and 30,000 e-mails and they opened a few e-mails and could not believe what was in them and it was in plan english. there's going to be a prize to this and the russian headachers are responsible to it. i wonder if there's a way to improve the code of communication for certain e e-mails. and the methods to have a rotating system of cords that only a few people one able to hand and reduce the problem.

>> the balance and factors on that is a huge set of issues and how ever institute and not just the federal government and the business that we read yesterday on boll accounts that got hacked at yahoo. it's not just a question of of communications. that's important piece of this, but to end you have got questions of and data as it's being transmitted and all of these present challenges for all of us and not just the government. i think you may have seen the president's kbhigs on the cyber security issue to set a recommendation a week or two

oog. and that's in terms of working through the issues and determining the right responses to all of these, but it's a very very enlarge and complicated issue. >> do they come and ask for anything. is that a role that it's going to perform or is the cord natding federal users not getting that? >> well, i think you have other part approximates of the federal government and the chief information officer we're there in terms of policy and one of the things that we have done in

terms of people coming to us and work that we have done is over the -- i mentioned this in the opening remarks but in the last several years we have been running these multistakeholder processes to develop codes of conduct and best practices in the fields where it's way too early to be thinking about regulation or legislation and we're trying to get footholds such as we did on best practices related to drone privacy and brought all stakeholders together and invited all stakeholders to participate to help develop kind of the first cut of how people selling drones and operating drones ought to respect the privacy of the citizen and so i think we have made a lot of progress in society and the other areas yesterday and we just released the output of the separate and

work together with the community of people and find software and in the devices and to try to bring them together so that they're working in a more co- cooperative fashion in pieces of work that were just released yesterday in that area. we have put a lot of emphasis on bringing stakeholders together to see if we can advance some of these policy areas. >> thank you. katie with the digital and americans in the tax reform. i just wanted to go back and

elaborate more on the market place and incentives and spe spectr spectrum. one of the ideas is a market value on the spectrum and having that account informed budgets or working on where there's a natural reluctance to take a lot of risks in bringing in new systems and technologies before they have really been tested and understood. so how do you overcome that reluctance when if you know that there's a product that works and uses a particular band of spectrum, i think that they

continue to use the system is like that and not just say and are being paid to protect human life and property. >> this is on the coordination for the 5 g.

>> no, that's an evolving technology and as usual the u.s. is on the leader in the area and that's just these technologies. >> that's the spectrum uses and to the united states and then perhaps other countries and we put it in the u.s.

>> and then the technology and then that's and it's interesting to watch and how that and then that's the right time what. >> okay. thank you so much. [ applause ]

>> we have the administration and the comments today as well as discuss the future of i g and let me just briefly introduce the panels today. on my far left on your right is john wilkin chief for the wireless for the federal communications period. during his tinier, the

activities was the 5 g activities and the developing of commercial licenses rules for the first millimeter waves for the services and close engagement with the industry and local government and stakeholders on small cell infrastructuinfer struck sites. in the middle we have mtia and paige leads the spectrum management efforts for the executive branch and manages assignments and national and international policies and strategic planning functions. f fred campbell is the director of tech nlg and senior adviser with wireless 2020 and a professor in the cyber and telecommunication

law at nebraska obstetrical of law. he was chief of the wireless bureau at the ncc in the mid-2000, and he is serve in the 101st airborne division. very impressive. i would like to ask each of you to give your thoughts and reactions to larry's talk. i am going the to go -- let's start with fred and then john and then page. we can go in that order. fred, do you want to go first?

he made the point about going to the mission. my first thought was that the government does that on a ree tune bay bis and then all areas not involved the spectrum. so you take a real property and they need land and the fcc leases the building from a commercial entity and those things have prices put on them and a decision was made back in the 30s that spectrum was not going to be owned by anyone and in fact, that's largely true of the land verses western mississippi. to do something truly than what we have now, it could be the opposite and it could be that

there's no allocated spectrum and that's all special and if there's access, they lease and do it in the same way. i do not see how they can work and the act tract and the structure in place makes that different to translate at this point. speck strum rights like any other right that can be negotiated and have a value put on them.

>> he talked about what happened and it's a pretty impressive record and 245 meg hertz cleared and then again put that in context and just that is about a 50 percent increase and that's before we talked about the spectrum and in some way social security apples to organize ranges and just what we did this past summer was 11, and so you can do the math and that's a

hundred of percent greater than what is done so far. it's really striking and we do think that it's a big deal. you talk to folks for a long time and issues, it's striking how big of a change and how -- i think that i would add to that that the goal post is moving with the needs and what collectively the industry needs and the demands of the networks and i would add one other element and that's even the uncertainty of what the models will be. so obviously the traditional carriers that build the cellular networks is going to build in the space. will t mobile network be in the same model to serve of the

applications for the automotive spectrum. solar erie talked about sharing and there's the starting point and there's just less and less field and clear and spectrum and make it available. that's the reality of it's hard to do traditional full spectrum clearing. i think it's true and it's really innovative and lead the

world. i did a panel last week and they're still doing beauty contests and in this country whatever you think about this, auction is a way to do this and i think if we look ahead, there are new tools and sharing i think is the biggest category of them and sharing in the way that the networks are now and they're more intelligent and you can do the software capabilities into the network that can actually help the manage sharing. there's a lot of dates on the details and it will matter. we will look back and the idea of the sharing techniques.

and staff authority for the percent is just 600 meg hurds. what other bands is more special to commercial and not commercial to federal. where else can it be? and that's what the mtia and administration has done to help the federal spectrum to work with getting the commercial use possible and how the mutuals continue to develop going forward and i think it's impossible to see how they have been on the somehows. my reference point and again the orders that the fcc came out with this past summer was all

about federal, collaboration and coordination. the key was that it happened quickly, so if any of you have heard whether it's the commissioners and the fcc right now, the goal has been for the u.s. to lead the world in making it available and the u.s. policy is that we're going make it available and then view the rules as possible and then go out and figure it out. the key is that you have to make the spectrum available. when we made the bands available this past summer, we just focused on 28 and we're the worst in the world to do that. and that's how quickly we got that done.

the want the u.s. to be first for deployment because there's a huge advantage for the u.s. that was only possible because of the federal collaboration that really has been built and those of you that have done the you issues there was a lot of department offense there. >> i am going to elaborate on a few things that he says. there are a few choices for the government and mission and the whole point here is to look at it and understand what those

requirements are and to create a balance approach how we satisfy both. the ship that larry talked about with the share as good a component to that. bethought of that and somebody won and somebody lost. we don't have that choice anymore, so the sharing mechanism when it's appropriate allows us to create a winco scenario and satisfy the requirements and optimize the use of this precious resource. i will echo that we have to remain agile because i will use an example that technology can change dramatically and as an example within the last four years the report was published and the report sited the internet of things as a wireless

market, and now it's part of the daily. at that time 5 g was still evolving and was not mentioned in the report. that was four years ago, so you can see how dramatically things can change in a very short period of time. when i talk enforcement, i don't think of it as the legal sense and that's reactive like something happens and we have to take action to fix it. in the future, i think that we have to think of enforcement in a broader context we need to

have the process and policies. it's not where we are today but we have to move something that's much more proactive and automatic, so interfering it from happening in the first place. that's also the address in the process. i want to also address and the other element is what incentive that does drive to a decision maker to do something different and the way that the process works and the statutory requirements that many of these agencies are under, we're not convinced that it will create the incentive in the long run

because of how to decisions are made and whether that would influence to make a different decision than they would otherwise. we can get into more detail later. we're peeling that back and can better define what that looks like so everyone can understand the situation. the last thing that i will say is that we have come a long way. i have to echo what everybody has said and that's been foundational to our auk ses. it's going to continue to be more important as we move forward, so we need to continue to extend and strengthen that collaboration as we go into the

next four or eight years. i am convinced that we have the right team, foundation in place to be successful. >> thank you. we extend a great welcome to the c-span audience and we will try to get your questions up here as well. and there are a lot of folks in the industry that elsewhere are

working on technologies for the future and in an ideal world we have to come back to washington for anything. they come back and develop the technologies and everything is in place. i assume that's though the the case. i assume in fact that some of the new technologies will require some coordination from the federal government and whether that's in terms of specific standards for use of spectrum to the various bands and whether it's enforcement issues and whether it's receiver issues that larry discussed and whether it's international issues. i was wondering if each of you could just take a few moments to describe what you see as the

critical next steps for the development of the washington perspective as what is it that the new technology are likely or have come to washington for some help with. fred, do you want to start it off? >> well, think that's right. i think there will be questions brought to washington a gooz starting point is what john eluded to. it's a critical component and then the question is had you does that come internationally. john talked about the fact that the u.s. is going fist and that's the trade off and that's sometimes the rest of the world and that's the consequences and it would be nice if it could be

harmonized and there's also that there are -- license done and unlicensed o and what do i mean by that? and there's the traditional license and get to do that. it's traditional and unlicensed and then there's a band that you have the database and some sort of form or control. so one question is the united states going to settle on and i

think that's how to fcc has gone by the proceedings and just a little bit of that when i have been this way for a long time, they have in the articulated in deciding what is going into the model. it's hashed out without real quantitive justification for the decision. so will there be a justification

and the last thing is how do the decisions play out with the public interest tan stard? what do i mean by that? today if you have a license spectrum, you're host to a whole set of obligations and the merger reviews and the like because you have the like spectrum. if you use the unlicensed and use it not as an individual consumer and the basis and even potentially on a competitive, you don't have those. and then the service rules move just beyond the question of what model do we like for the spectrum purposes and that's the largest debate of the role and

how it administers the regulation. right now that is not sensible. >> okay. two things. first i think on the core fcc side, there's incredible momentum behind minimizing the touch plan to your way that you phrased it and men his from the industry and figuring out how to best use the technology and the fcc and there's the question of just making the licenses available so we have to do more work on the licensing themselves. they have to be aurksed and what's the plan that we have available and that's decided in

a lot of these and so automatic cars and that's what people talk about with the value and they put out their version of them on a piece of that this week whatever the spectrum is that's

the easy part and that's the cases that 5 g is rapidly going to get beyond the wireless areas and mobile services as huge as that is and 5 g is bigger and broader than that and that's very important. >> i will build on what john was saying. we talked about one thing and that's not. depending on who you talk to and for the many different things and many different folks and that's really an echo system and then we're going satisfy a very diverse set of requirements and whether it's a type of iot to the very high capacity purposes that we see in the future. so it really is many things combined into a consent at this

point in time and that's the personal thing and part of what we need to do is we need to better characterize what it is and how it will be deployed and that's going to be used and that will help to drive the standards and the development and how it's going to be shared the spectrum that it uses and then help drive what the standard should be internationally to enable the services and kind of the sharing ask security that we envision for the future. i i think that a key component is to characterize what it is and how it's going to be used and deployed:that's an ongoing process now and then to insure 245 the requirements are adequately addressed in the standards and then that will help us understand perspective stand point and that does that

mean in terms of potential demands, the types of spectrum that's needed for the various keegi cases and what needs to be made available and additional spectrum for being shared and i would say that spectrum are only one component and there are a lot that need to be addressed for the deployment and whether it's inapproximate for structure or other issues that are critical to the success of 5 g. >> i have a lot of things opening up and it's extraordinarily knowledgeable experts here on a wide range of issues and the question here is.

>> john, and as they pointed out there are different models and then there's a 5 g and then the model point that you would want and that's the tech and that's waiting for the standard and bodies to pick the models where -- who should be driving this process and how do we coordinate the plans? coordinati coordination. >> well, they're much more open and the collaboration and we have seen that and that's their

own and to the risk of looking like the government is getting too involved in the standards and making process. i have to do that and how you might do the coordination and in a way that's, you know, it's the example and then the advisory committees is one way to do it and it's not international because the standards and then that's alike and that's a triple e and that's a difficult question. i think collaboration is good.

>> i could give a slightly different answer. and i think that the u.s. market has different standards and that's happening with every technology standard for the wire lesser vices and if it's up to them, we would have started with gsn and ended with gsn. go back 25 years ago on advanced standards and the japanese had a very advance but it was not a digit digital scanner and so i think there's a lot of value in having competition and there has to be a mass market attraction but i

do think that the u.s. has been more on site of angles than on delaying the standards until you're further on the process. i don't know. >> the focus of the terms of use of the spectrum and freds point there's a version of that and clarify what it is and that's the bodies and then they're pretty good forums and that's different economic interests that maybe battled a little bit.

and so i think and then the rules for using that and we have seen a lot. >> i think it's an approach and we learn as we go and to be clear i agree with all of the panel lists and i'm a fan of

government mandated study and i think what i understand john's question to be is and then i expect it to have multiple interfaces and then the question becomes do you -- some of which may have the different spectrum needs or different interference concerns and with the federal government alike and so i understand john's question to be with the issues and given the potential of the complexity, some interaction seems that it

maybe a good idea and it was not advocating for a different idea of an approach, if you will. >> i think we're answering different parts of john's question. >> let me asked one thing. i think that 5 g gives us an opportunity to do it right and in many areas it's looking at enforcement and what we need to integrate into the standards in collaboration obviously and the industry that would make sense and how we can use it in an affective way. i think that it gives us an opportunity to inject things that beknow that we need that we may not have known as we were developing other standards along the way.

>> thank you. i was wondering as the frequency is higher the range gets a lot shorter. i am wondering if it's going to be feasible to license exclusive use over a very small area like a farmer wants exclusive use to do precision farming over his farm only. is that something that he would be able to do and afford and not have to hire a bunch of people to go through the paper work? >> great question. i just want to address one part of it. absolutely. the distances are much shorter and the sides for a lack of a better term is smaller. there's a bigger license and i give them the commercial honor and this is a very dense and the question is that it's teed up as

question and then that's the proceedings and then it's a way of the questions and let me change your analogy or the example it's the building and it may hold a license that includes a bunch of buildings and because you're not going to go through the building wall no matter how hard that you try. you have this inside of the building and whoever owns it, you cannot get in there unless you work with the owner and the site facilities there. what's the policy do that? i think that we're still struggling. i think it's a good example of the technology improves and this is important. all that you did was say traditional license and one owns

all an area. if they wanted to, just the pure the building on the third party and how do you get rights that go through the building and how do you manage that? it's been teed up. i don't have an answer, but it's a great question. by the way, that same issue of the much smaller distances and that's about from a regular stand point and how do we actually make deployment happen, and that's a bit of a broader question than just to make it available. so something as simple as local processes used to approve cell tower and you may have a thousand small cells and the local processes are all the same. that does not scale. these are the things that the networks being deployed are working through. >> you i am adjust providing a

little layer on that. that's my opinion. so for example people are positive on a nuisance approach on the real property to spectrum management for situations like this, and i would say okay one difference with the real property is that you have the local zoning and access to local courts. so when i i hear of a nuisance type model, i think of one federal court if you will. the fcc that has two administrative law judges. i don't see how it fits the model. we have to go into more detail. my initial and then do things on

a basis and we have done things layer by layer and when you start to get that and that worries that it's going break. >> we have a lot of licenses in the band and then that's in the area and then what the a lot of what the spectrum from tier does is provide the use and not limiting and that's point to point and point to multipoint purposes. the size of the license is in all bands and every order of allocating these spectrum and the issues come up with what is the right size in the geographic

area and then they struggled with this to fairly small areas and then smaller than the city. i don't think that there's a single right answer to it. i think as john said i don't think that it really depends on the frequency and the issue of what is right area is. it's something that the commission has always struggled with and frankly we will continue to struggle with. >> okay. thank you everyone. so the p cast report in it, it says somewhere along the line that they envision a world of sharing and with the tv cases and that's a little concerning

to me. it's not performed as well as people were hoping a couple of years ago and the device marker was predicted within three years and they have sold a hundred. so modding it that way is concerning. what lessons have policy makers taken from that to make sure that the 3.5 and the other sharing mechanicians work better than the other spaces? >> well i will take the first one. i think that there's a lot of unique aspects and the con section and i know that sort of disproves the possibility of having a system like that working affectively. e i think probably the biggest change and again in the context this is where we're seeing the

current version of it and so as the networks continue to evolve and basically it's diggal signal processes is fast enough, you can build into the networks essentially the sharing and implementations. this is actually has larry mentioned, the easy example for it is making more spectrum availables and you have the military radars and on the coast and when they're used, you better not interfere with them because the aircraft carrier is coming through and don't mess with it. it's not an hourly event or you a daily event. other than time, it should be available for commercial use. if your the navy, you want to make sure that it's available. a lot of the discuss is how do you build that into the network themselves. you department want to rely on the data abase and it has to be embedded in the networks. those systems are being worked

on. it's not opened down stream of that order and then the wireless a is looking at applications of the systems and i think you would just go to a if you would point a broader technological trend. at&t fviews their network as embedded in the software. that kind of broad example can be applied to the share context of you can implement these rules -- just about more affected time, space -- white space is the unused spectrum. it's proved difficult but the general approach is one that has to be tried for all of the reason we talked about. and 3 to 5 is the next shot at it. >> i'd say i think we're talking about our transaction costs. and i view it as a triangle is how i try to describe it to my students, at the top you have command and control, which at some point there was a consensus

that we didn't like anymore. although it's never gone away and in fact most of it is still command and control. and then there was pure unlicensed which is you've got a limited set of technical rules and then it's suppose to be do whatever you like. and then you've got the new hybrid. and the way i describe it is the hybrid is a new flavor of command and control. it's a return to command and control. and my example would be the recent conflicts over wi-fi and lte and the traditional pure unlicensed bans. people do analog video in those bands which blows out any wi-fi. but now you're going to commercialize it on a big scale with a different technology and the wi-fi industry raised its hand saying no, you can't do that. it's a form of squatter rights. i'm a fan of wi-fi.

i'm just talking policy. ironically, therefore when i say it's a form of command and control, we've relived history. well, radio act of 1912. there was no regulation of the air waves and the problem was there were broadcasters and interference and the big complaint was the squatter rights, we can't let that happen. so we reregulated it to eliminate the squatter contracts. and then unlicensed comes along in the modern form saying technology will eliminate all problems. well it turns out only if we all agree to the same standard, which gets you back to the government deictating the stand ta ard. we've done the 1930s all other. the hybrid models are much for sophisticated and flexible command of control and form,

hopefully, but you've just shifted the set of trade-offs to, again, the property rights have their own trade-offs and those who don't like those say no, we need to do this other thing. now we're back to the command and control which is government-mandated standards. the 3.5 is interested but it does contemplate the control part of the network would be managed by someone. will it be someone? do they have a monopoly over that? is it a form of license? it's very complicated very quickly. i'm a fan of property rights because that gets sort of the lobbying out of it and lets people go figure it out. and that's the trade off to command and control is you have to have a government kind of hand involved in everything. >> our last question is going to be someone who has been watching

through c-span, michael marcus metropolitan community. this is from paige but i'll open it up. what can eta do to facilitate above 95 gig hertz and open it up. i think the question generally is we've had focus on millimeter wave spectrum. what about even smaller spectrum that technology will eventually get there. are there plans at ntia to put some of that out? >> well i would say that i don't see it any differently than the other bands that we've been discussing. it's a matter of collaboration and discussion in terms of how can we share as appropriate.

when you get higher and higher in frequency, theoretically and technically it makes it easier to share spectrum among multiple users and potentially the systems. so i think it's a matter of discussion, collaboration and defining a path forward which we would do in collaboration with the commission industry and the agency. >> actually let me use that question to make one point that i meant to make earlier, which we talked a lot about spectrum frontiers, that was a set of rules done this summer. the fcc now has spectrum frontiers part two that's teed up an additional number of these millimeter wave bands going up pretty high. so this is an active ongoing fcc proceeding. just as a side note, this is about as bipartisan as things get i think on these issues where everyone is in agreement we want to make progress on these.

there's an administration happening but that one is going to keep going, be my guess. issues like that are teed up and active commission proceeding. as paige said -- to the gentleman's question from before, when you get that high, the provocation gets real small and the most sensible licensing approach for spectrum, whatever anybody else around the ability of someone to use directional technologies. you're never going to be kilometers in distance. what does that mean for the best way to use that. this is not a theoretical question. >> ojohn, i think you have the last word. please join me in thanking your panel today. thank you so much. [ applause ]

. coming up shortly on our companion network c-span president obama holds a news conference before leaving for his annual family vacation in

hawaii. this could be the last news conference of his presidency. that's scheduled for 2:15 p.m. eastern and you can see it live on c-span. later on c-span, the chief strategist for the republican national committee, sean spicer sits down with reporters to discuss the trump transition. mr. spicer has been mentioned as a potential press secretary in the trump white house. that event is at 4:30 eastern lye on c-span. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, saturday evening, just before 7:00 eastern, providence college history professor and author examines the life of nat turner and the confusion and uncertainly about blacks and whites of virginia in the revolts aftermath. >> the clash embodied the

dramatic differences that existed in the black student as some, including artists, decided to support the revolt while others elected to support the whites. >> then at 8:00 on lectures and histories, the university of maryland cat reena king and how consumer experiences changed during that time. >> instead of selling an automobile as a mens of transportation, from getting you from point a to point b, you can sell a car as prestige. >> just before 9:00, the historian discussed the post-world war ii career of cartoonist sergeant bill maul din. >> mauldin avoided ideological