inventor martin cooper. then, patrick donahoe discusses the future of the u.s. postal service. then a portrait for john conyers unveiled, the longest-serving member of the house of representatives. >> c-span, crated by america's cable companies 35 years ago, brought to you as a public service. >> marty cooper has a long history in telecommunications. he is known as the father of the cell phone and active in spectrum management and serves on 2 advisory committees for the fcc and the commerce department. what is your role on the spectrum management advisory committee? >> both of these committees advise their organizations what to do about spectrum in the future.

they each have subcommittees that they specific problems. like receivers, the internet of things, various issues which these groups are looking for input. >> what is your reaction to the $40 billion that is auctioned on the ews three auction spectrum. >> i have strong opinions. i think people that buy it are getting a bargain. the spectrum will be so valuable for these long-term. the auctions are the wrong way to do it. the auctions don't really reflect the fact that we, the public, own the spectrum. when we auction it off people

that buy it really just got a license to use it. they are supposed to use it in a public interest but no one takes it back again. it is the issue, using spectrum in the public interest, that is the most difficult problem that we have today. >> geo group the idea -- do you agree with the idea of taking excess spectrum and getting into the public airways? >> i don't. i have a simple issue that i just will repeat over again. if it is used efficiently, if the people who use the spectrum using most modern technology, there will not be any question of having enough. there will be much more than required. congress has created an environment in which there is not a lot of motivation to use that you efficiently.

for that reason we have this in this of the scarcity, the shortage. >> that goes to cooper's law, doesn't it. >> it does. history is technology is always moving our ability to put bandwidth through the spectrum doubled every 2.5 years. we know enough now to know that we can not only continue that, but maybe go faster than that. there is really potential to have more than enough spectrum. >> let's bring paul kirby into our conversation. >> isn't that the problem with federal spectrum? they don't always have the latest system because they rely on the federal budget and the budget is often scarce itself? >> of course. that is why i'm not sure that it is in the public interest to take spectrum away from them. all of these entities ought to

be motivated to use the most modern techniques, to use the most cost-effective techniques. for these government agencies, maybe the latest spectrum is not in the best interest of the public. that ought to be the issue. any business, and these are all businesses, we ought to optimize . we ought to use whatever gets the end job done right. i am not sure that we do that. there are other motivations. i think all of these things have been done on the issue by issue basis. >> let's get into specifics. smart technology has been something you have been wishing. give us specifics of those, what can allow people to use spectrum more efficiently. >> we started the smart antenna

work 20 years ago. that technology has already proved that there are systems all over the world using them. lte, the standard in the cellular standard today is just starting to accommodate the latest work from smart antenna technology. that is the first step. the ultimate in the spectrum efficient technology is dynamic spectrum action. that includes a bunch of things. i know you have heard a lot about it. it includes some new technology that is just starting to become laboratory available. we can use satellites to create a model of the world so that one

someone transmits they will know whether they are going to interfere with a buddy else. put these things together, i hesitate to tell you how more patient will be. because you would laugh me out of this room. we are talking not about tens of thousands of thef improvement, but millions of improvement. that is not as crazy as it sounds. we are one trillion times more efficient from marconi's times. the thought of being an million times more efficient in the next 20 or 30 years is not as crazy as it sounds. >> wireless carriers would say that if it allows folks to share spectrum, they would contend it is not ready for prime time on a wide set basis. you have to test that. what would be your reaction?

>> of course. none of these things happen quickly. that is why the observation i made that there has been a continued improvements, that hasn't really been a smooth improvement. it happens in spurts. cellular was one of those spurts. but, the smart antenna technology is available today. in fact, the people that are writing the standards for lte have announced that this month the standard will include enough technology to improve the spectral efficiency by at least 37 times. that is today. that is not the future. if it makes you wonder why when you make a big fuss about these auctions, when they add a few

percent, and yet the standard has the implied ability to have 37 times more spectrum, it sounds crazy to me. >> given the fact that these auctions were looking at $20 billion and it is up to $40 billion, doesn't that say that this is valuable real estate? >> it says somebody thinks it is valuable. in the present environment it is. there is no motivation for people to do this 37 times improvement that i talked about. somehow, the way the congress has set these things up, it is easier for somebody to buy from the spectrum than to worry about the technology and to take the risks that are involved. if there is anything that i

would do to improve the way we do these things, it is for the fcc to do things to motivate people. what an be nice if they said to somebody, if you don't know don't use the spectrum more efficiently you don't get to have it. that is public property. if you are using it in an inefficient way, then it is not in the public interest. we are going to take it away from you. if that motivation occurred, we would be using the spectrum better and better. it is not just a matter of solving efficiency problems. the fact of the spectrum is the glue of commerce, it makes things happen better. it increases the public wealth. that is the important issue. the congress ought to be getting people to use the spectrum more because it is going to solve things, like the poverty problem.

the way you solve the poverty problem is by making the total gmp bigger so there is more of a share among everybody. the whole issue of spectrum efficiency to me is making everything more efficient. making congress more efficient. making government and education more efficient. all of these things use wireless spectrum in ways that make the results come out better. >> are you an outlier on the committee you serve on with your opinion? >> i think everybody has good intentioned. i'm not sure that are other people who are prepared to criticize the fcc and the government. the only advantage i have, i don't have a company i only have

to worry about what marty says. as you already have noticed. >> you often seem frustrated at the direction -- they spend ways to free up government spectrum that is an auction now. should that process commission that energy focus more on technology and not freeing up spectrum for more auctions? >> i don't want to blame the committees. i would even blame the congress department. that is what they are doing. the committees take their direction from the specific issue. there are specific assignments made to various committees. they don't have much choice. and, the nti a is following the instructions of the administration.

>> if you working for a day how would this spend the year and a half,? >> you know that i am a techie. the engineering profession, the ability to do technology is not recognized because of the nature of what these assignments have been, these are in general not technically oriented people. that is not a criticism. they are expert in responding to the questions brought up. the fcc advisory council is more technically oriented. they are responding to questions brought up by the fcc. there are some committees on the fcc that are facing the fact

spectrum problems. >> what about the verizon's and at&t? are they using spectrum efficiently or more officially than they were? are they looking at this issue as well or are they buying more spectrum? >> all of the above. they are using the spectrum more efficiently. they are operating businesses. they are trying to optimize in the environment the government is creating. that is why i don't fault them. i do believe they properly motivated 10 times better and how they use the spectrum today. they do not really need additional spectrum. the government should make it that easy for them to get it. the ought to be motivated to use what they've got more effectively, and new concepts be

brought into play by additional spectrum. the biggest problem with the existing carriers, they don't have any competition. i believe there is an opportunity given the apartments, to create competitive, wide area coverage systems. wouldn't that be the right kind of motivation to get people to use spectrum more efficiently? i could describe it to you. i have not trying to solve the problem myself, i am just giving an example. suppose you to wi-fi and made integrated all the wi-fi that exists? almost every where you go with your wireless devices, wi-fi is available. if you could integrate all of

those wi-fi's, and make them available, you would have an alternate wide area coverage. the verizon and at&t is not available. that could be a much lower cost system then exist today. it would have advantages and disadvantages. existing carriers would have competition. they have motivation to use this technology and get their prices down. that has got to happen for wireless, broadband is too costly today. there is a spectrum problem. there is some of the youth services arising that are being usurped by wireless, mainly in education and medicine that are essential services.

they are not conveniences. as an example, and education we have determined people who are challenged more than others actually have their brains grow faster. we have new techniques that are internet enabled that challenge students much more effectively than lectures and classrooms. could you imagine a world in a future where we have one class of people who have internet wireless available, have their minds challenged, have bigger brains, and another class who don't have that it managed? that is unacceptable. we can't have this society with 2 classes like that. we have to figure out a way to make the wireless internet available to everybody at a cost that everybody can afford.

>> how do aggravate these networks? the cable network has consortium. how would you aggregate them into a competitor to a large fashion system? >> there are some people doing that today, in specific areas. what they do is take the access point that people have in their homes and business is, and they split them into 2 accesses. one for the local person who has it in their home or business, and another available to other people. the one that is available to other people is based upon describing through a general service. those services and integrated wide area services, that is being done today in some areas. not in a large scale. they have created [laughter]

cell phones that are primarily wi-fi cell phones but i will go off into the wide area networks when there is no wi-fi service available. >> which is the opposite of a lot of folks with a will seamlessly going to wi-fi network. >> you will -- you've got it. i don't know why you don't just have wi-fi radio only. more inexpensive cell phones and service cost a 10th of what the existing service is. >> marty cooper, when you give this message of the he is art of the advisory committee, does tom wheeler, to the other commissioners here you? >> i haven't had much opportunity to do that. first of all, i have enormous

admiration for the fcc. they are trying to satisfy everybody. when you try to satisfy everybody it is hopeless. whatever they come up with with net neutrality there are going to be unhappy people. they are doing a superb job. but they have not yet accepted the fact they should take on harder problem's. the one example is when you tell people they should use the spectrum more efficiently, they say where you measure efficiency? that is a hard problem. first of all, just because a problem is hard, it doesn't mean you shouldn't attack it. look at what happened when they attacked the efficiency problem with automobiles. we have standards now for miles per gallon. they keep changing them all the

time. it is a hard problem but they solved it. look at what happened to fuel efficiency. the same thing can happen in spectrum efficiency. >> what about receiver standards, which you mentioned earlier. that would allow the fcc doesn't really have jurisdiction over it, but receivers could basically not get the interference. alter that out and then spectrum would be used more efficiently. that has come up more and more. tell us what you think about what the fcc, what you would like a group to do on receiver standards. >> the fcc doesn't create the technology. they are primarily focused on interference to other people. i think they've got to go to the problem, sharing the spectrum.

making, working on techniques that allow all to use spectrum in ways that will interfere with other people. but they have done with the receiver standards of our has the next month but they haven't yet on into the dynamic spectrum access. that is what has to happen. the interesting thing that is going to happen when you have this ultimate access, no more licenses. think about a world where anybody who all is a set of rigorous rules could just come in and operate. no licensing. no options. a spectral efficiency that is millions of times better than we have today. those are numbers for that is not technology. >> marty cooper, you have mentioned that neutrality and the current deliberation. what is your take?

a net neutrality, and should wireless be treated differently? >> i have no idea what tom wheeler should do about net neutrality. i know the long-term solution is not regulation. anytime you regulate, you imperfectly only systems that are optimal r sub organizing systems were everybody is motivated to do the right thing naturally. my issue with wireless is the question of prioritization. having the only prioritization be how much money you have doesn't make a lot of sense to me. somehow we have to create a neutral system that allows us to solve the education problem that allows medical application to come in in ways that a way that everyone can afford them. that is a hard problem.

i sympathize with tom. i know that whatever he is going to do is going to be the best that can be done. one of the things i think the fcc should do with regard to net neutrality is use the threat of regulation to get people to operate more efficiently. if the fcc, for example, says new license these -- new licensees, we are not going to regulate you at this moment. we are going to let you run with certain reasonable wireman's, and that is the work people need to hear, for five years. but at the end we expect you to be x times more efficient than you are today. i think we can make some progress read i don't know if that is a practical thing. the fcc does have weapons they could use. it would not make them totally popular with everyone. it would move us forward.

>> when you pick up that brick of a phone in 1973, and call the at&t engineer, making the first cell phone call, did you ever perceive these problems you were creating? >> all of that is on you i think. >> you can't do that though. we had a narrow issue. that was to make sure that there was a competitive and handheld [inaudible] we knew that everyone was going have cell phones that day. there was no large-scale internet. there were no digital cameras. we do not have that kind of vision in those days. telephones what we were worried about. >> does it surprise you there are more cell phones today than people? everyone has a couple of different devices.

>> that does not surprise me. i think we have only begun. at some point in the future, you will be have several devices on your body to do various different functions, all of them connected efficiently, and all of them serving you in some really and way. we have only begun. >> it is the shame when you made the first call you couldn't have tweeted it. we have been talking about spectrum efficiency and when you spectrum in a better way. the fcc is looking at can we take spectrum of 24 gigahertz and start using that for mobile broadband, which has been thought to be not usable. give us a sense of realizing you want to make better use of the lower spectrum the people are currently using. what is the spectrum frontier for that?

>> the way we use the spectrum today, we assign somebody a block of ekstrom. -- spectrum. they do everything in their block of spectrum. does it make sense for somebody and us that he who is communicating with someone across the street to use a piece of spectrum that has the capability of talking 10 miles. part of dynamic spectrum accesses good you use the optimum piece of the spectrum for each conversation? if i am talking to someone 10 miles away, it might be 100 megahertz. if i am talking to someone off the street, final 50 gigahertz? people do that. they use long-range frequencies. dynamic spectrum access is a term that includes all of these techniques.

that is the way the spectrum should be used. trying to make each piece of the spectrum do everything doesn't make a lot of sense either. >> you have a fan of the fcc. you had that with her. she calls a race the top, where you would incentivize summoned him up with a way to use spectrum 100 times better, and then they would get a license for spectrum. is this something you have proposed, and give us a sense for what you think this would accomplish? >> the issue is to motivate people to use spectrum. and what commissioner rosenthal and i suggested is literally a conscience. it is a process that would take 10 years. we have to have various steps.

we are suggesting the objective is to demonstrate that you can operate the spectrum with 100 times more effectively than is being done today. i now think we were much too soft. it ought to be more than 100 times read think of what happened. if you go through this process where you ask people to demonstrate on paper and they can do this, and you sort out people that the best solutions and you go to the next and they demonstrate in a laboratory, and you go on, calling out people, you could have two people left each of whom has probably spent $1 billion. you may be prepared to give each of them tend that you hurts. that is nothing. wait a second. it is a hundred times more efficient than what we have done before. it is the equivalent of 1000

megahertz. more than any carrier has today. >> it would be worth more because of what they did. >> you've got it. >> monti cooper -- marty cooper, u thinking about today decides spectrum? what is on your agenda? >> if you think of spectrum as a techie saying, what has happened in my search for getting people to use spectrum more efficiently, i have discovered always people are improving humanity. when i look at what is going on in the medical community, we have the potential, using wireless technology along with a bunch of other things, to virtually eliminate disease. talk about objectives. that is more real, to get more spectrally efficient.

the one that really excites me is what is going on in education. i have touched on that before. we tend, and almost everything we do, to treat people as classes. people are not a class. they are individuals. if we can have a system that is tailor-made to each individual, and the example that i give just the way children play games today. i do not know what you are to employers, but these games are -- if you are game players, but these are complex and challenging. if you can visualize an educational system were a child is continuously challenged, or if they cannot achieve the level, they are strong off to a different challenge. your