right thing, and protect our seniors. and he ought to do this soon. >> c-span -- created by america's cable companies 35 years to go and brought to you today as a public service by your television provider. >> joining us on "the communicators" is jonathan edelstein who served on the federal communications a -- federalian communications administration. >> this is the association that represents companies that build jonathan -- build wireless networks. thateople that send all information to your cell phone, countries like sprint and

t-mobile, as well as companies that own and old cell towers, the antennas that you find in shopping malls. equipment that is behind the scene that makes possible what you see on the screen. >>, a cell towers are there? -- how many cell towers are there? >> hundreds of thousands. it is hard to keep up with the desire for new infrastructure because of the demands on them for structure today. what is your organization focused on? >> we are making sure that we want to illuminate barriers to get the networks in place. our priority. sometimes they are federal rules that might affect how we employ things or how the lighting may be or impact on historic sites or the environment. we want to make sure that we are sensitive to those issues. at the same time, we want to make sure that we are moving

forward on unemployment. our customers, those who use these vices every day, depend on having a good, strong connection to getting the data they want where they want and whenever they wanted. that means having a repost -- --ust >> the spectrum auctions are coming up. is that a big deal? >> yes, a big deal. cisco found that there will be an eight full increase on the amount of data that is coming -- traveling over the networks in the next two years. how do you deal with that? there are three levers that are companies used to make sure that we can meet those demands. they use spectrum and they need more spectrum. technology, like moving from a three g technology to what is called 4g. it is more efficient and allows it to travel more over the same spectrum.

infrastructure is what delivers that out there. the spectrum auction is necessary because it takes many years. it spectrum is allocated for to actually take that data off of existing for equities on to new frequencies. that's because we need to change up the handsets that people are using and that does not happen every day. that happens over a series of the years that the old handsets come out. 3ge are using old three g -- handsets and some are using 2g. we will be waiting a long time even if spectrum is being allocated today and we are not getting it in place. that is why we need this auction to happen as soon as possible. i think chairman wheeler is being deliberate about how they're getting it done and try quickly.orward but we're talking several years before we get much help.

we're are not seeing much spectrum coming on. the short solution is infrastructure and you know you're in trouble when your short-term solutions infrastructure. it takes a long time to get these things zone, build, and up and running. that could happen fairly quickly and that is what carriers are saying. i was talking to a network executive recently who said that in a spectrum constrained world, we need to get the fire networks. they are building in. there anymore and 10 is within. they were: -- they will co-locate on an antenna and systems that might go into a crowded area, like a stadium. we are looking at different solutions to deal with the fact --t there is a tsunami that tsunami of data that consumers are demanding.

we want to make sure our equipment is welcome, that it can roll out quickly, effectively, and that means we can deliver the service that consumers want and an affordable price. >> joining the conversation is paul kirby. >> one of the things that pcia push for is regulations that would allow deployment of infrastructure. there's is something going on now that would propose wages that would allow you to deploy the structures in a more streamlined fraction -- fashion. some say that it would violate zoning laws and state sovereignty. i want to get your response to that argument. >> local authorities are our partners in building these networks. we would not have this huge system we talked about, all the towers and antennas, in place today if we had not gotten approval from local authorities. they have an important role to play in this. congress said in the law

that they enacted in 2012 that is part of the broader spectrum legislation is that they want to make broadband a national priority. the sec says that broadband is a national priority. what we're asking for this rulemaking is let's have localities join that. an increase of localities are getting that. they're seeing the importance of broadband to the community and they are acting to get these things done, but not all of them are. what we're saying is, look. everybody needs to get on board this. we expect that the fcc is going to do the same. they have been great partners with us in working with state and local governments to make sure we can get broadband where it needs to go. there are a lot of reasons for this. we should a study recently, people talk about the economic benefits of broadband.

let's put a pen to paper and put a number on it. we had independent economists research this and our companies are making huge investments in capital expenditures, the largest of almost any industry in the world, $35 billion a year over the next five years. each year, they will be investing in the united states, and infrastructure. that small investment has disproportionate impact on the economy. broadband is revolutionary and how it changes everything. it changes were jobs are created, it changes how health care is delivered, how education is taught. all of these things are made possible by wireless broadband. let's calculate, what is the value to the economy? , ifurns out that we expect policymakers allow us to make his investments, that there will be $1.3 trillion, with a t, increased economic activity as a

result of these investments over the next five years. that translates into 1.3 million jobs. that is at a time or redo not have enough. jobs not only in the wireless industry's but jobs and the other industries that are adding. some people lose their jobs, too. you might not have as many if youne operators, but sub out the jobs that are lost, there are 1.3 additional jobs. >> some of the rules -- one of the proposals that the industry is favored is a few years ago the sec adopted rules that said localities that have to act on projects by a certain. of time. the agency said that if they do not do it by then, it should be deemed granted. the localities oppose it and the industry is pushing. why is this? >> congress said in this law in 2012 that if an application is

made, local zoning, it must be approved. it cannot be denied. that is congress. what they are saying, and this is in the case of changing out the equipment on existing towers -- you may have an existing tower that at&t is on but you t-mobile wants to go on that tower. they want to co-locate. rather than doping a new tower, why not let them do that -- molding a new tower, why not let them do that -- building a new tower, why not let them do that? having the of country have 97% of broadband by 2013, what we're asking the fcc to interpret is that there is no delay what it should be automatic. >> mentioned earlier distributed

power systems. tell us why that is necessary for the sec to adopt rules that streamline the deployment of those systems? >> these systems are smaller by definition. space ofot take up the a 200 foot tower and they should not be subject to the same role. system of towers is going to be the background -- backbone of the network. there is a need to fill in where their are places with extra demand, like in a stadium, it busy urban corridor where they want to have small sales, target that capacity where people are using devices and drawing down a lot of data. eacha requirements go to one of these little antennas, each node on the system, it is going to slow the process. it will kill the business model. this is very expensive, building the networks out. the fact that these companies

are forced to do it because there's not enough spectrum is something that we are saying because they need to get the service where it has to go. you can break the back of the business model if it ends up costing the same amount for each small one as they would have to build an entire tower. they will not provide the same level of coverage, they cannot be subject to this thing costs and revelatory hurdles or it will not work. if you want to get service where it is needed, we need to do that. take the example of polls. we are talking about utility poles. because it is a license communication device, it goes through all of this regulatory review. if it was a transformer that the electric company that owns the pole is putting up, there are none of the reviews because it is different. be smallerell would than a transformer and because it is what it is, it has to go

through additional regulatory hurdles. all we're saying is that we should's remind the process -- we should streamline the process. there needs to be a quicker process for small cells, wi-fi, and cable companies are trying to build up wi-fi networks. they have done well so far but they're going to run into more issues if we do not make sure that we streamline the process. the fcc totally gets that and is working with us. >> jonathan adelson, you talk about streamlining. is that on the part of congress or locality? >> this is both federal and local, how they look at the small cell versus the large tower. , section federal rules one o six. there is a natural -- section 106. the question is, how do you streamline the process of the scc get so caught up that it takes forever for the networks to deploy? happens, it will not to

deploy. there is no time to wait. congress, fcc, they have said that they need to get the networks build and build quickly. if they find that we are things inegulatory front of each node, it will take forever and kill the business model. that is why we're looking at streamlining federal rules and local and state regulations as well. >> do you face, injure industry, -- in your industry, the not in my back yard role? >> all the time. your from people all the time. you know, -- you hear from people all the time. you know, that should not block the entire industry. there might be a handful people that say that, but others are saying we want this. seeing yeseasingly in my backyard. young people today are cutting

the cord. most young folks that you talk to don't even have a wired phone anymore. 40% of all americans do not use one. they want cell service. when a young person is shopping from home are hearing from a is one of the things they must have his wireless service. my kids have to have their broadband. they will not put up with it if they do not get get service. what about that? the attitude is shifting. we are finding that people are increasingly welcoming these. yes, there are always people that do not wanted in their backyards but that is precisely why the industry is responding. we are targeting capacity where it is needed most. we are trying to build small antenna systems, build systems where there are demand, we can hide and do sell techniques to make sure we blend with the environment more. in the end we have to build bigger networks. there'll be an eightfold increase over the next five years and we cannot do without more infrastructure. >> the issue that the industry

has always faced is an issue that some localities that some localities try to get authority of her. it is an fcc issue. that youomething always face, even with small sales. they will say, what if there are 10,000 of them? how do you counter that? >> i think people need better education on this. although studies have shown that this is perfectly safe. i understand that people have concerns. we need to address them. in doingow is involved a conference of study of radio frequency emissions and what safety applications there are, if any. we really believe -- i was on the fcc for seven years. there is no way they are not going to protect the public. it is what they do for a living. law, are noty allowed to take this into

consideration in local zoning decisions. they do it all the time. they say, don't put it near a school. those kids are using broadband every minute of the day. there a huge demand on their iphones. they're using it for their homework. that is precisely where we need it. some schools gain revenue by citing a wireless system in their school. it is completely safe. i understand some data or mom night not know because it is not what they do for a living. it is important the fcc, once it determines exactly what the final outcome is, put out intelligible information to the public from a reputable source as to what is and is not safe so that parents feel comfortable, as they should. every study has come back the same way. there are really no serious health implications here in if there were, i would not be in this job. i believe we need to get the

broadband out and it is something we can do with complete safety. to be educateds about that. understandably so. >> fcc chairman tom wheeler has been very active since he came in. he worked for the wireless industry while you were at the fcc. can you give us a sense of how he has done so far and are there issues of particular importance to pcia that he is not addressed so far that you would nudge them on? >> i think the chairman is the right person at the right time. i was thrilled when the president announced his appointment. i have known him for many years and he is a person of impeccable integrity, a person who is a strategic thinker, he is decisive, he is bold when he needs to be, he is thoughtful and careful. he is remarkable gurgle how fast he is moving. -- remarkable in how fast he is moving in some areas. we are at a pivotal point in

history where we have this opportunity to build this enormous network that is when to transform how we live our daily lives, how we educate our kids, how we deliver health care, how we have our first responders going to a burning building with the blueprints on them. he gets all that and he is focused on how do we make is happen? there is theif lays because of regulatory hurdles, capital will not flow to investment where it needs to go to get that signal where it needs to be, to the end user. is thisrity for us notice of rulemaking that we mentioned at the beginning. the idea that we can streamline broadband deployment. the acting chairwoman put it forward when she was the chairwoman of the fcc. the previous chairman began the process. the commissioners calling for moving this quickly and i think chairman wheeler will move it quickly and take strong action to try to do what congress asks,

to get broadband quickly deployed so that the end users can benefit from it. so we can get those jobs and economic development. if there's one thing i think he needs to think about, it is that we have an issue of resources. putting so many new sites in place. at&t talked about 40,000 small cells. it is going to place enormous burden on the fcc. there needs to be adequate resources for compliance. a number of issues that are -- there is an overwhelming number of deployments that is happening that is making it difficult for the fcc to have the day-to-day to get these things moved so that we can respond to consumer demand for wireless data. it is not a big, giant proceeding every day but making sure that those resources are there to move through the applications to move through the review process. these are the required -- that is something that i don't think

he will take his eye off the ball -- >> you are concerned that congress -- all of the fcc's budget comes from licensees. you think congress needs to authorize a greater amount for the fcc? is that what you're saying they don't have the resources to do the day-to-day job? >> they need to approve the full budget that the fcc request. they run lean. i think is appropriate to ask the right questions. having peopleto to deal with native american concerns. i come from south dakota. transform those economies and reservations but it will not happen if he gets caught up. it turns out the rules on indian reservations are very time-consuming to work through because of the nature of the ownership of the land. it takes resources. it takes people to move through

that, otherwise we will not get broadband where it needs to go. >> you said that the goal is 98% wireless broadband coverage by 2016. where are we now? >> there are different numbers on where we are. the president's goal of 90% is something i think we are able to achieve by 2016. we are getting there. nca has certain numbers. the industry has its own. we need to move as quickly as we can. we would like to get 100%. some of these last areas are very difficult to get to. cannot afford to delay. it is not just a coverage issue, it is a capacity issue as well. i think the president and his team and those and congress get that as well. in the old days we were building out the network. back in 2000, making sure everyone had coverage. the maps are about who has cell phone coverage so i can get my cell phone through -- call through?

much traffic in urban dense area that we have to put more and or equipment in in order to do with capacity issues because we only have a limited amount of spectrum in the same amount of spectrum that we have in urban areas as well as a r ural, but much more traffic. how do we split those cells up so we can use the same frequencies over and over again more efficiently? former fccn your commissioner hat and then your infrastructure association had. sprint-t-mobile potential merger. your thoughts? hat offrd to take one because they're both members of mine. it is not something i can get in the middle of but i can see there has been a lot of talk about it. there has been unusual signal sent by the regulators about it. it is something that we are watching out for. the house committee is

looking at an update of the communication act. is a process that is expected to take years. what would you advise them? you mentioned spectrum legislation that passed a couple of years ago. would you recommend other things they take on legislatively to help you specifically? time sinceeen a long the telecommunications act was passed in 1996. we have seen generations of new technology implemented since that time. it really is time for an update. i think the house leadership is right on in asking for a deep thought about it. they're going at it the right way. they say, let's do papers and analysis, let's prepare the way intellectually, thoughtfully, about where we will head and where the holes are. i think it is a good idea. these new technologies are just a preview of things to come. g networks are coming. how do we pave the way for all that? one thing the communications act

might be revised to consider is technological neutrality. it can be hard to build wireless networks and wireline. -- an wire build wirelessto networks as opposed to wireline. why is wireless held to a higher standard? if anything, i think we should encourage wireless broadband at every stage of deployment. we have seen that from congress. i believe they want to do that and we are anxious to engage with them and discuss this issue with them. do with thew to challenges of how to deal with that much data demanded by consumers and the act rewrite is well time. it does not happen in just one congress. it can take several to get it done. the time to begin is now.

>> there is another network underway. it is the first responder network and it would be a nationwide public safety broadband network. they only have $7 billion. they said they want to try to partner as much as they can with the private sector because you said there are hundreds of thousands of cell towers out there. what are your members hoping to be able to gain and what opportunities are they hoping for from the first responder network? >> it is long overdue. i worked on this when i was with the fcc in 2006 and 2007. unfortunately, we failed to properly allocate that spectrum in a way that could work. it was one of the great tragedies because after 9/11 everyone said that the priority is, let's make sure that our first responders have access to the medications that we need. we sent hundreds of firefighters into that building to their death and they did not have proper communication with each

other, they did not have broadband capacity, it was a tragedy. much of it could have been avoided with proper communications. we cannot let that happen again. that firsttial net succeeds. we have to do everything we can to have our first responders have a network that is second to none. they do not have enough money to do a. $7 billion is an important down payment but you cannot build a nationwide network with that. theyngress required that work with existing assets, existing infrastructure to the degree possible and there is already a great network of existing infrastructure that they can cite on. a lot of this is as yet to be made about how they want to set up their system, whether they go through an existing provider, build their own. with the amount of funding they have, i think they will have to rely on the infrastructure that exists in our members are really ready and ages to see the sick -- anxious to see this succeed

because we want to help the people that put themselves in harms way. want to make sure that when the firefighter goes in the building, he gets home at night to see his kids. rulesuld net neutrality also apply to wireless networks? >> is an interesting question that we looked at when i was at the fcc. we have not seen any complaints about the way wireless networks are set up. people are charged more for the amount of data they use. it is like any other service. these are things that are working well. the carriers have to manage their networks. network management is more complex because there is more constraints in wireless networks than there are in wireline networks. it simply isn't the spectrum. there is not the capacity.

i need to move things around and they can optimize the use of the wireless networks in the spectrum. it gets very tricky in wireless, how you do that. all of our carriers believe in an open internet. there are no concerns there. as far as wireless, they're serious about how they can conduct their business. consumers are thrilled i can use any application on the device is that they want, as long as they are legal. that is something we are proud of and i don't see the need on wireless networks for additional information -- radiation. congress is requiring railroads to deploy this by the end of 2015. is going to require more than it is goingnas --

to require more than 20,000 antennas by the tracks. tribes and state officers are concerned with the proposal from the fcc, saying it will not give them enough say to ensure cultural and historical resources are protected. thenerally supportive of proposal, but i'm suggesting a few modifications. i want to give you a chance to weigh in on what the fcc should or should not do to help that process. >> positive train control is a huge undertaking and it is required by congress to protect the safety of the public sell these trains can be controlled using this technology, but requiring 20,000 new sites for wireless service is a huge undertaking. a lot of them go through native lands. that is combined with all of the other building operations at our folks are engaged in. our people are building out huge numbers of new sites as well.

as is the resource issue. -- this is the resource issue. they're trying to streamline this and they do not have the resources to go through all the tribes or anything else. railroadhis is on right-of-way. these are not necessarily pristine from an online mental -- from an environmental perspective. they have been railroaded over for, in some as well as all of the other issues that are before the fcc. that is why they need to figure out how to do this quickly. looking at a program or something where there could be categorical exclusions the more they can get under the way.