julianne malveaux. your questions and tweets. in depth, live at noon on c-span 2 "book tv." >> on your screen is a report that came to the president from his council of advisers on science and technology. the report is entitled "realizing the full potential of government held spectrum to spur economic growth." two members of the council of advisers on science and technology are joining us this week on the communicators. on the left is craig mundie and on the right is mark gorenberg. mark gorenberg is a venture capitalist out of silicon valley. if you would, start by telling

us, what is the presidential council of science and technology. >> it started back in the fdr days. this has 21 members. it is chaired by the president's science adviser. also eric lander who is a co- chair and a vice chaired by bill press. we work on a number of reports that were done the forest them education, manufacturing nanotechnology, health i.t., a number of other issues. the text of this study in the fall as you talk about looking at the full potential of federal spectrum. >> summarize this report that you all gave to the president. >> in the report, we make a

series of recommendations that stand -- span a range of issues beginning with the question of, what should the strategy be long-term for the country in order to avail itself of the benefits that come from the new technologies and electronic and software technologies that are available today. for a variety of reasons, they have not been able to be broadly deployed. the reports speaks to creating measurement systems within the broadness of spectrum by the federal government and order to accelerate the movement from a classical model of spectrum allocation to the new model. the report basically identifies a specific strategy. how the process could begin early, even though the complete transformation if it is to be done will probably take as long as 20 years or more. >> also joining us ispaul kirby.

>> the report calls for the immediate identification of 1000 mhz spectrum for sharing with wireless carriers. it also says that should be the norm rather than reallocation. the wireless industry has reacted coolly to this. one of their allies even said this report and other reports are providing cover for the department of defense. basically, they do not necessarily want to give of the spectrum. how realistic is it a report will be implemented as their result of this opposition? >> that is up to the white house to decide how they want to move forward on the report we put together. in terms of the situation itself, we are looking at dizzying demand. we are following on the

broadband plan that came out two years ago. that called for the accessing 500 megahertz of spectrum for commercial use. making that available. the growth even since the broadband plan has been greater than expected. if you look as some of these studies coming out there now those studies look at an economy of perhaps 4.5 trillion dollars by 20/20 a huge growth not only in spectrum as we use it today but also in new ideas like the internet and things. if you look at that, you can say that may call for 50 times more spectrum. if you look at current technology and increasing spectrum, that might give you two times. if you look at it today with lte, that might be five times.

to get to 50 times you have to go to a new ibf. the clearing of allocation of federal spectrum is not sustainable as you saw in the recent report that just came out regarding the 1755 band that called for over 10 years $18 billion and a lot of disruption. what we looked at -- it is interesting that people consider us to be forward thinking. we think we are actually being very pragmatic and conservative. in the report, we are looking at using technologies that are available today and deploying those technologies really around the policy to start to create these spectrum superhighways. but to get spectrum to the commercial users sooner. we think perhaps within three years by implementing this.

we are only looking at federal spectrum. >> i have one thing -- there is a lot of commentary as he mentioned from some of the traditional cellular interests. when we sat as science advisers and looked at the aberdeen need for spectrum over the long term, we conclude -- aggregate need for spectrum over the long term we conclude there will be many applications in the private sector and government environment. the ultimate sustainability is not whether you can clear enough spectrum to make the traditional cell phone industry happy. we do not think that is even possible. when you look at the broader demand overtime, there is no possibility to do this without a fairly radical transformation of how we think about allocating and managing spectrum. >> let's go to randall stevenson

who is the ceo of at&t. he said technical solutions are nowhere near prime time. the report talks a lot about using various technologies to try to enable the spectrum sharing. i am curious if you have any more reaction to the criticism of the technology. >> by the way randall stevenson who is a great ceo, we agree with the comments that he is making in his op-ed that came out at the beginning of june. then he did a speech for about one hour or so right after that. if you look at what he said, he said that it will be 6-80 years if you cleared and repacked spectrum for them whether it is federal spectrum and sharing technology that he talked about -- smart and tennis will be five years or more. -- antennas will be five years

or more. we actually believe in what we put forward, we are espousing the same. we're not talking about -- although we mention the technologies in the report, it's easy and our recommendations, we do not talk about the deployment of those technologies at all. the talked-about technologies here today already being used. we talk about database technologies and the idea of using a spectrum access system which is a evolution of the technology craig has been involved in for 10 years. we talk about the deployment of small cell. small sell technologies as you know will -- as you know, we will be shipping more units than a macro cells. we're talking about simple technologies for sharing that are already deployed like the five gigahertz band or the way they have deployed medical body

units appeared we're actually talking about using the technologies today. we think if we can create the backbone, that will be the sperling litmus to move these other technologies forward. we will see those in the 5-10 years that will happen. we will be more likely to see them if we can get superhighways' going. >> go ahead. >> i was going to add a thought. many of these technologies do not have to be advanced substantially to even begin. today the whole world uses a lot of blue tooth and whyifi. even the carriers are offloading in high-density mature areas a lot of the data traffic from the cell phones of to these essentially wifi cells that are very small.

you could take the existing cellular systems adjuster to shrink the cell size systematically, which would require no new spectrum or technology. you would essentially get increased three use even with the classical architecture is. as mark mentioned we are not betting the farm on the idea there has to be an a media introduction of radical new technologies. we do think overtime each of these additional technical changes creates another multiplying effect in terms of spectral efficiency. that is what we think overtime you can occur in much greater capacity and utilization of the total spectrum that we are getting out of the correct model of a location. >> monday is the chief research and strategy officer for the microsoft corporation. mr. mundie, and other privacy concerns when sharing the space

with the federal government? >> no. schering is a word that implies a lot of things with a lot of people. -- hsaring is a word that-- sharing is a word that implies a lot of things to a lot of people. it does not imply there is access from one radio system to another one, whether they were two private systems or a private one and a government system. those are completely resolved. i do nothing there is any privacy issue at all. >> in your report, you write shared access to federal spectrum should be governed according to a three tier hierarchy. federal primary systems would have the highest protection. secondary licensees must register deployments and use a database and may receive some quality of service protection, possibly in exchange for fees.

general access users could have access to unoccupied spectrum. could you explain that a little bit further? >> if you look at the idea of employing the federal spectrum and saying, ok. he would have in different areas a federal user be the primary incumbent. you could then have people who could get an exclusive secondary access. that could be current lte systems, small cells looking for quality of service almost like a carpool lane or a highway. and in general access, you could have the idea of people who do not have exclusive access to the spectrum sharing that. in some ways similar to unlicensed but not licensed spectrum, a way it would be registered or could be automatically registered so that there could be track of all this in a database.

>> i think sometimes people get very animated about this question of federal pre-emption or priority. there are two things important to realize. we have these situations if you will even in the wireline telephone network. the government has had the ability to preempt traffic on the classical phone lines or even the cellular networks and emergency situations. i think always there is a need to reserve some kind of capability for government in specific situations. here we think instead of the only being an emergency, when you look at the aggregate use of spectrum measured over time and over geography, there is lots and lots of places and times where people can have very sustained use of this, even if there comes a moment for the government says i have a plane or exercise or boat that needs

to operate in the harbor. you may have to move out of the way for some period of time. when you look at the aggregate gains, we believe they would dramatically away the risks associated with it or the disruptive effects of that kind of tiered model of priority. >> the assumption is the government is not using the spectrum that often. when they do need to use it is very important. that is in small areas. it is infrequent times. is an such a way where it is not very destructive as craig is sitting to particular users, particularly ones that when a secretary -- a secondary use. one argument the commercial world has used is a federal agencies are not using the spectrum as often. that is a reason they should be giving the spectrum for use to the commercial world. if that is true, in this system

it is a bigger benefit to them in terms of how often they will be used to that spectrum. over time, we believe through the mechanisms we have argued for in terms of incentives and putting other pieces of funding in the white house those federal systems will become more and mo efficient. therefore less intrusive to the secondary commercial user. they will make it easier overtime to clear some of the systems and move them around to other locations. we think this is a way to ease into the issue of getting much better shared use. by the way, the other. i think that is important to make is that over 50% of the spectrum up to the 3.7 did the band is shared as well but in ace that equate. it is a much more efficient use.

>> our guests are two members of the president's council of advisers on science and technology. is a venture capitalist from silicon valley-- mark gorenberg is a venture capitalist from silicon valley and craig mundie. >> a number of parties have made the case, federal agencies have to be assured that to their spectrum, their operations will not experience interference. the report actually mentions there could basically be a shut off of commercial operation of their is harmful interference. mr. mundie mentioned databases rolling up slowly. can you give us a sense of what kind of assurance you think the federal agencies will need? has the technology developed

quickly enough to give them the assurance that they will be able to continue to operate on a sharing regime without interference? >> in a sense, implementing all of these things is a little bit of technology and a lot of operational of these capabilities. at the tail end, a little bit of regulatory control to ensure the right deterrents are in place to keep people from doing the wrong thing. part of the reason in our proposal of this transitional model of these stacked priorities is it allows us to get started immediately before the time we're a government radio system might be modified to be more inherently able to operate in a shared environment. a lot of the quest we had was to say, how can you make use of

technologies that are currently demonstrable and are in the process of getting rolled out in the united states and outside of the united states and piggyback on the progress that has been made there in both of the regulatory and the developmental since over the past 10 years and use that to accelerate the transition in this? each of these choices can be made banded by a band. there does not have to be one giant database in this data controls everything all the time. it may be practical to do that. that is not a prerequisite to start to move in this direction. we identified an area in the spectrum where the government has a lot of uses like maritime radars. while that is an important use while a ship is operating a denture a particular area, that will typically only be near the coast or the great lakes.

the rest of the country is reserved for boats that will never be there to operate radars. our view is if the government is willing to know this is the idea of registration, what the devices are, they have the ability to come back on anybody who violate said. these kind of violations happen today. you have amateur radio operators or others who intentionally or accidentally star in treating some where they're not supposed to be. the fcc has been forced those issues. yes, there will be some technological activity. you will have to take conventional methods and you will have to have the contract made with the federal user. these have been done on an ad hoc basis already. sharing radar with other applications. it is not like this is without precedent. what we are trying to do is say

there is a general architecture that will allow this to become the norm as opposed to things that are done on an ad hoc basis one after the other. >> we believe a system like this can be applied to federal spectrum regardless of frequency, we look more at the higher frequencies. let's say 2700 and above are particularly well suited to small cell. everybody is converging to an idea that in the 3550 bandit which was the first analyzed by the anti i a, they looked at it against large macro towers and created exclusion zones around the coast. that is not that interesting. if you put in small cell technology into these areas whether they have a priority access or whether they have a general access, you can shrink the exclusion zones significantly and at the same

time give much better solace to the federal government will have a clear area to operate. >> it could more than make -- members of congress love auctions because it brings in money. how can you convince lawmakers reject some democrats have been very favorable about the report. one republican commissioner and some aides were less favorable. how can you convince them, or will you try to convince them that it is ok if we do not give the auction revenues now because it will create more than enough for the economy. >> we are looking only at federal spectrum. if you look at that, the auctions started in 1994. having $53 billion created by auctions. over 90% has come from repressing spectrum for commercial real use.

there has really only been one significant successful auction of federal spectrum. that was in 2006. that netted a little more than $5 billion. that is also being used -- will score that over 10 years. realistically it should be considered over many more years than that. that is only a few hundred million dollars a year. in total to date from federal auctions. if you look at the report that just came out that talked about $18 billion. they are not even planning right now to auction that because the cost of clearing would be greater than what they suspect will come in. when you look at federal spectrum, the amount of revenue they were going to get any way would be relatively small. in our proposal, we look -- once you have created a spectrum access system and you have the idea of a secondary users, you

have a system already set up where you could have a number of different types of revenue models. you could have user fee models. you could have recurring revenue models. you could have option models. in fact, we could be looking at a system where we perfected former options to be used. these may be smaller geographic auctions. these may be secondary smaller timeframe auctions. we think you can open this all up to a large number of options in the secondary use and that could bring in quite a bit of revenue overtime in these federal bans which today it is unclear if they even will bring in future revenue. >> i think it is also important -- the question i would pose back to them, have they ever used bluetooth or wifi? these are on a completely unlicensed totally shared environment with no databases

administered. you can go all the way around the planet today and there is a huge economy built around the use of why fight, the sale of equipment and-- wifi, the sale of the equipment. every one of these things is essentially aiding the economy if you will. that is where the title of the report talks about the impact of making a strategy choice like this. it does move you away. our belief is over time, implementing this moves us from an artificial shortage that we have today in the availability of spectrum to one where spectrum appears to be abundantly available. people who want an application in any domain should be able to get immediate access to some spectrum to do their problem. in that environment, we think it will basically but the economy up further.

the indirect revenue that comes from economic growth we think will dwarf that. one of the things in their report, there is a citation to a recent economic study done in europe about making a fairly specific allocation of spectrum into a new larger unlicensed band. they estimated that these few mhz put into the model in europe would be the rough equivalent of an 800 billion euro stimulus program. >> actually billion. >> i think whether you look at it as an academic economist or practically, what has happened with stimulus greeted by the arrival thewifi and bluetooth in less than a decade, you should have some comforts that these things could really happen. >> officials from the white house and because commerce department were complimentary of it. have you gotten a sense that the

plan for the president to issue the memo you call for any time soon? if so, when? >> as market said earlier it is ultimately the president's choice about what he does in terms of the report. it is safe to assume that we would not issue the report in a complete backing. there has been a lot of discussion with all the stakeholders in the white house, throughout federal agencies, and many of the commercial companies, even those that are in some was complaining about different aspects of the report, the world -- they were all party to the discussion before we completed writing it. it is not like we went into a closet and produced this and started dropping it on the president's desk. there was a lot of thoughtful process that went into the development of it. we are pretty hopeful that the president will move to act on the recommendation. exactly how, that is up to him.

>> why 1000 mhz? where did that come from? >> first of all, we look at the demand that we see it will be huge. the other is, why 1000 mhz? when the broadband plan came out, they started to identify spectrum. a look that up to 2.2 gigahertz and then keyed in on 1.5 gigahertz or 1500 mhz and should be analyzed. from that was started to look through that and say there should be -- there could be a good opportunity how it will evolve with 2730700. what does a megahertz is a combination of need for demand for sharing with the federal government. -- 1000 mhz is a combination of need for demand and sharing with the federal government. >> there is a technical basis for why we want the big goal.

our model in the long-term is that we should not be giving people tiny slivers of spectrum to operate in. the new architecture is that are emerging and software to find radios and other related technologies really operates better if they get to range across a much broader junk of frequencies. that is where we think you will get higher overall utilization. the military moved to these architectures years ago. not for spectral efficiency but to make it harder for people to jam them. the inverse of that will be a benefit. if you can get a lot of people operating across a much broader band, you are likely to get better spectral efficiency over the long term. to get everybody into the model will require all radio systems are we are protected from the

classical 100 year-old model to the new model. that is why we claim the entire process will take two-three decades. we cannot go up and get the satellites and service them and change their radios. some systems have a lot lifetime and he would not be able to get them all we are detected. i believe over that period of time and with a lot of it happening sooner, these things will actually happen. >> the report says that implementing all this could take decades. you mentioned earlier during the show something could occur in a few years. three years from today if the president were to issue the memo what would you think would be realistic three years from today? >> first of all, we looked at starting a pilot almost immediately. one is too great a steering committee of industry leaders ceos, and the